Texas Ed Spectator

MySA.com: Politics

AUSTIN — After a bill to teach Bible classes to high school students easily gained approval from the Senate on Wednesday, lawmakers immediately disagreed on whether the measure would make the courses mandatory.

Legislative leaders were not sure whether school districts would be obligated to offer the religion studies course if 15 or more students sign up for it. Both “may” and “shall” show up in different sections of the House bill the Senate sent to the governor without changing.

So why limit it to Bible classes? Why shouldn’t schools be required to provide classes in the Chinese language if 15 students request it? What about Java programming, will the school also have to provide the computers?

Obviously, the original sponsor of the bill thought the school could just go out and hire a Sunday school teacher. Things are a little different if you have to go out and hire a teacher qualified to teach it as an academic subject.

And if a student requests a class which the school then provides, is the student obligated to take the class? What if a requesting student moves out of the district–what happens to the class? It looks like to me common sense prevailed in the Education Committee by changing the language from “shall” to “may.”

80(R) HB 1250 – Introduced version – Bill Text:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to prohibiting discrimination based on a student’s secondary school in awarding certain financial aid for higher education.
???????BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: ???????SECTION?1.??Section 56.304(a), Education Code, is amended to read as follows:
???????(a)??To be eligible initially for a TEXAS grant, a person must:
?????????????(1)??be a resident of this state as determined by coordinating board rules;
?????????????(2)??meet either of the following academic requirements:
???????????????????(A)??be a graduate of a public or [accredited] private high school in this state who graduated not earlier than the 1998-1999 school year and who completed the recommended or advanced high school curriculum established under Section [28.002 or] 28.025 or its equivalent; or

If a person meets all has met all other college admissions requirements, does it matter if she went to an unaccredited private school?

Looks like parents might be able to save recess based on local values.

80(R) HB 366 – Introduced version – Bill Text:

SECTION?1.??This Act may be cited as the “Freedom to Play and Learn Act.”
???????SECTION?2.??Section 28.004, Education Code, is amended by adding Subsection (l) to read as follows:
???????(l)??The local school health advisory council shall consider and may make policy recommendations concerning the importance of daily recess for elementary school students. The council may consider any research regarding unsupervised play, academic and social development, and the health benefits of daily recess in making the recommendations. The council shall ensure that local community values are reflected in any policy recommendation made to the district under this subsection.

It does make you wonder what other areas parents would be interested in having some influence over. And will this provide “legitimization” for unschoolers? After all, they can use any “research regarding unsupervised play, academic and social development.” Sounds like supporting unschooling to me.

In Texas?

80(R) HB 379 – Introduced version – Bill Text:

(b)??A school district employee or a volunteer or independent contractor of a district may not administer corporal punishment or cause corporal punishment to be administered to a student.

But wouldn’t that make us all wimps?

Another case of “you’ve got to wonder why” proposed legislation?

80(R) HB 362 – Introduced version – Bill Text:

? A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

relating to the ability of public school employees to communicate with members of a school district board of trustees.
???????BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
???????SECTION?1.??Section 11.163, Education Code, is amended by adding Subsection (f) to read as follows:
???????(f)??The employment policy may not restrict the ability of a school district employee to communicate directly with a member of the board of trustees regarding a matter relating to the operation of the district,

The bill is sponsored by Rob Eissler, a former school district board trustee, so I kinda figure he doesn’t believe that board members will be inundated with frivolous issues by district employees. So which districts are trying to make employees go only through organizational channels to control complaints and/or whistle blowing?

80(R) HB 77 – Introduced version – Bill Text:

REQUIRED TEXTBOOK ADOPTION AND TEXTBOOK LISTS. (a) ?For each subject and grade level, the State Board of Education shall adopt textbooks that contain all elements of the essential knowledge and skills of the subject and grade level, as determined by the State Board of Education under Section 28.002, in the student versions of the textbooks, as well as in the teacher versions of the textbooks.

Just guessing here but I would think this is an attempt to force textbook publishers to include “controversial” topics such as evolution and birth control in the students’ textbooks as well as the teachers’ versions. My impression has been that textbook publishers have been able to mollify the more conservative members of the State Board of Education (who, of course, have no political agenda) by leaving it up to the teachers to decide whether or not to address certain issues.

In fact, it takes away the SBOE’s authority although if the SBOE doesn’t decide if all the elements are included, I don’t know who would.

80(R) HB 77 – Introduced version – Bill Text:

[and] contains material covering all elements?
	[each element] of the essential knowledge and skills of the subject
	and grade level in the student version of the textbook, as well as
	in the teacher version of the textbook;?[as determined by the State
	Board of Education under Section 28.002] and

In any case, I bet SBOE members aren’t going to be big supporters of this bill.

The next session of the Texas Legislature doesn’t begin until January but members can and are already filling bills. And thanks to the internet, you can now track all legislation online. Now my natural inclination would be to say that this is a good thing, open government, accountability and all. But sometimes, you have to wonder. Take the following bill for example:

80(R) HB 314 – Introduced version – Bill Text:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the classroom placement of multiple birth siblings in public schools.
???????BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
???????SECTION?1.??Subchapter B, Chapter 25, Education Code, is amended by adding Section 25.043 to read as follows:
???????Sec.?25.043.??CLASSROOM PLACEMENT OF MULTIPLE BIRTH SIBLINGS. ?(a) ?In this section:?????????????(1)??”Multiple birth sibling”?means a twin, triplet, quadruplet, or other sibling resulting from a multiple birth.
?????????????(2)??”Parent”?includes a parent standing in parental relation.
???????(b)??The parent of multiple birth siblings who are assigned to the same grade level and school may request that the school place the siblings in the same classroom or in separate classrooms.

Apparently Rep. Eissler wants to give parents the authority to decide if their “multiple birth siblings” should be in a class together. This bill would allow them to do so with the school only being able to override the decision if it causes classroom disruptions.

When I see bill like this I have to wonder why are they necessary. My guess would be that some schools have denied the parents’ requests for their children to be in the same class because they presumed they knew what was better for the children than the parents. What arrogance!

Now I know there are some flaky parents out there who perhaps aren’t serving their children’s best interests when they insist they be in the same classroom. But don’t they deserve the benefit of the doubt? Maybe, just maybe, they know what is in the emotional best interest of their children?

Because of some imperious administrator, (I’m assuming that the final decision is such cases would be made at this level) a representative has filed a bill so that the problem can be resolved by the legislature. You would think that the legislature would have better things to do in it’s limited time but otherwise the situation may not be rectified.

Unfortunately, we will probably see a number of similar bills throughout the session. Rather than the legislature having to make rules to prevent administrators from making bone-headed decisions, maybe they should work on holding administrators more accountable for the decisions they make.

Project Will Tell High Schools How Well They’re Preparing Students for College Success:

Texas educators will soon have a place to go for concrete answers to whether their students go on to college and how well they do there.

Great. But then that means that the legislature didn’t have a clue as to high school students were doing once they got to college with or without four years of math and science.

Project Will Tell High Schools How Well They’re Preparing Students for College Success:

Four Texas school districts have agreed to participate in planning the database and testing and critiquing the reports during the nine-month development process. The districts are Plano, Garland, Fort Worth and Houston.

Hmmmm, and apparently if people had been willing to wait for a year or so, they could have made decisions based on real information.

Project Will Tell High Schools How Well They’re Preparing Students for College Success:

The project is made possible in part by an $83,500 grant from the Indianapolis-based Lumina Foundation for Education

Well, if it would cost the state the salary of an average high school football coach, there’s no way the legislature would make that kind of investment in education decision making when it’s much easier to say “4 by 4″ and be done with the matter. Okay, I’m guessing about the high school coach football salary part but not the investment part.

Proposed HB 122:

80(R) HB 122 – Introduced version – Bill Text:

1-7 Sec. 29.911. ” EDUCATION GO GET IT” WEEK. (a) To educate 1-8 middle school, junior high school, and high school students about 1-9 the importance of higher education , each school district and each 1-10 open-enrollment charter school offering any of those grade levels 1-11 shall designate one week during the school year as “Go 1-12 Get It” Week.

Why do teachers and administrators need the legislature to tell them to promote higher education? Maybe the districts can’t take it hint from the 4 by 4 requirements.

Here’s a guess at what Texas’ 4 by 4 will lead to.

Lexington Herald-Leader | 11/20/2006 | Educator works to reduce need for remedial courses

Joe Bagnoli graduated from Ashland Holy Family High School with a 3.7 grade-point average and with A’s in four years of college preparatory math courses — algebra I and II, geometry and trigonometry.So it didn’t add up when he took a placement exam as a Berea College freshman in 1984 and learned that he wasn’t quite prepared for college math. It took one hard week of work in a remedial math course for Bagnoli to get caught up.

Now, almost 22 years later, he is Berea’s associate provost for enrollment management and proof that Kentucky’s multimillion-dollar remedial education problem isn’t limited to slow learners.

It looks like Kentucky is facing the same problem.

Lexington Herald-Leader | 11/20/2006 | Educator works to reduce need for remedial courses

Currently, 53 percent of entering students at the state’s public universities and community and technical colleges need at least one remedial course, according to a recent report from the state Council on Postsecondary Education. The report also showed that 44 percent are not ready for college math, 32 percent are not prepared for college English and 25 percent do not have college-level reading skill.Overcoming these deficiencies costs $25 million a year, $11 million in state money and $14 million in student tuition for courses that are non-credit.

So is Kentucky mandating four years of science and four years of science as a solution like Texas? Nope.

Lexington Herald-Leader | 11/20/2006 | Educator works to reduce need for remedial courses

To try to better prepare students, the General Assembly passed legislation last winter that will require 11th-graders to take the ACT at state expense to diagnose remedial education needs while students are still in high school, as well as increase the number of students who go on to college.

Gosh, imagine that. They are going to attempt to diagnosis the problem before solving it. Furthermore, the state is actually going to pay for what it is mandating.

Lexington Herald-Leader | 11/20/2006 | Educator works to reduce need for remedial courses

Kentucky’s development education task force will make its proposals on Dec. 5. Some of those may require legislation in the 2007 General Assembly.Cain said some of her suggestions would most likely include:

• More communication throughout the K-12 and postsecondary systems so “there are clear expectations, very specific expectations” of the skills and content students must master to move to the next level, so that the “elementary schools know what the middle schools expect, the middle schools know what the junior high schools expect, the junior highs know what the high schools expect and the high schools know what the colleges and universities expect.”

• More instruction in college schools of education so that future teachers can more readily identify students with remedial needs and know better how to work with them.

• Making sure that the best teachers are teaching developmental education in college, and reduce what has become a heavy reliance on part-time and adjunct faculty.

Well, the problem with this solution is obvious to a Texas legislator. It’s too iffy, too touchy-feely, not enough commanding involved. Besides, with a name like 4 by 4, you know it’s just got be a good solution–for Texas.