THE EDUCATION FRONT

President Obama made education news yesterday when he told the National Governors' Association that future federal grants to states for schools that serve largely low-income students will be contingent upon states developing benchmarks for reading and math that show whether a student is ready for college or a livable-wage post-secondary job.

Under the president's plan, states can go after this in one of two ways. They can come up with their own reading and math standards, which their local universities must attest are preparing students for college or a career. Or, states can join with the group of governors that are trying to come up with a core group of common standards in those subjects for all their states.

This proposal sounds good for two reasons, but with a caveat.

The DMN's Holly Hacker and Bob Garrett reported this week on the budget cuts that state agencies are being asked to make to help correct the state's budget shortfall of anywhere between $10 billion to $15 billion. Universities naturally were on the list, including about $26.6 million in reductions for UT-Austin, $7.2 million for UT-Dallas and $8.3 million for UT-Arlington.

We're in a hole, so everyone's going to have to live with less than ideal situations. University of Texas System Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa acknowledged that point in an editorial board interview Wednesday.

But he also pointed out something that surprised me. While the UT-System got about a 6.7 percent increase in legislative appropriations during last year's session, UT-Austin got only about a 1.9 percent hike.

That's because the state uses formulas based upon enrollment to help fund campuses. And UT-Austin has pretty much maxed out on its enrollment capacity. (UT-Dallas, on the other hand, is in a growth phase so it received a greater percentage increase in legislative appropriations.)

Cigarroa said he was exploring ways the Legislature could fund schools other than through enrollment figures. He didn't have any specific suggestions, but that seems like a plausible path to go down. Perhaps the Legislature could reward things like cutting-edge research projects.

Whatever the answer, we all have a vested interest in UT-Austin, as well as Texas A&M, climbing higher in the rankings of public universities. Students would benefit from top faculty and better student-teacher ratios. And the state would gain from the innovation that comes out of top public universities.

I pressed Cigarroa some about expanding the amount that the UT System spends each year from its endowment, which puts UT in the top five or so of university endowments nationwide. I have no desire to see UT draw it down in a way that harms future generations. Hey, I have kids that I would like to go there someday!

But UT should at least look at easing up on its yearly drawdown, which regents recently moved from 4.75 of the fund's value to 5 percent. That changed ended up flowing a few million more into UT-Austin.

So, here's my question: How much could UT-Austin get if regents voted to start drawing down some more each year, eventually reaching, say, 5.5 percent or even 6 percent? (My understanding is that Yale spends 6 percent.) And what impact would that have on the multi-billion dollar endowment over time?

I don't know the answers, but maybe a little more liberal use of the endowment could help UT get enough extra revenues without having to worry about those funding formulas.

So far, no one — not Gretchen Bataille, not Chancellor Lee Jackson, not the board of regents — has explained just why Bataille is so suddenly and shockingly leaving the presidency of the University of North Texas.

But in a letter sent Tuesday to board members of the UNT Foundation, which raises money for UNT, Bataille leaves some intriguing clues.

"I am sure that over time the reasons for my resignation will become clearer," she writes. Specific enough to say we will in fact learn the truth, yet vague enough that we don't know when or how the truth will emerge.

Jackson says they tried for over a year to improve their relationship. But Bataille writes, "Until the past week I was anticipating a long and successful tenure as president of UNT." Which begs the question: what very recent event triggered her departure?

Still no details. Bataille (who has a PhD in English) simply writes, "As many of you know, things change — or as both Chinua Achebe and William Butler Yeats wrote, sometimes 'things fall apart.'"

Read Bataille's letter and Jackson's comments below. And you can read some of our recent stories here and here and here. And here's why our editorial board thinks we deserve an explanation.

And for one UNT insider's thoughts on what really happened, check this out.
.
Bataille Foundation Letter

Jackson FacSen Speech

Is Ken Starr a good pr bad pick to lead Baylor? We had a discussion about this on the Opinion blog yesterday.

Here is my take:

We don't know yet. It depends upon how good of an administrator and fundraiser he turns out to be.

The bigger issue is whether or not he will be a good educator. He led Pepperdine Law School for a few years, so he has some track record. But I don't think we will know the answer for a while.

What's your view?

By agreeing last week to put more money in Juarez's schools, Mexican President Felipe Calderon placed a bet on his country's future. He may not have many good wagers to make given the violence along the border, but this was a smart one. The money won't turn Juarez around tomorrow, but it could later if students have an alternative to the lucrative but deadly life of a drug cartel member.

Mexico's schools have notoriously been behind others internationally, despite some recent reforms to increase standards. The unions remain strong. But the fact Calderon diverted some money from the immediate need of reining in the drug violence shows that he gets the long-term picture. Mexico can't move beyond Third World status without a better education system.

The U.S. could help with the situation, too. Thomas Friedman wrote recently in the New York Times that for every buck we spend on drones in Yemen we should spend an equal amount on building schools there. Well, the same principle applies to Mexico. For every buck we apply to fighting the narcos through military or policing means, we should give Mexico an equivalent amount in educational aid. As in Yemen, we will benefit in the long-run if Mexican students opt for a life in the global economy.

By the way, our aid doesn't have to be entirely in dollars. We could get folks involved in turning around our urban schools to share during summer trips or through video-conferences the best ways to reach students. (Numerous Americans already provide scholarship aid to young Mexican students through churches and civic organizations.)

An idea like this may sound naive, but look at it this way: Our security along the border depends upon fewer young Mexicans drifting into gang violence. Calderon's placing a strategic bet on schools being part of the answer. Why don't we do the same?

That's what KWTX in Waco is reporting.

Bill White said something interesting and different in Monday night's gubernatorial debate. Different for most Democrats, that is.

When asked about the state's school funding situation, he said that parents should be free to put what they want into their children's school after the state has met its funding obligations. At the same time, the state must make sure that kids from all backgrounds have access to quality schools.

To make sure I heard that correctly, I followed up with the White campaign. Here is their post-debate statement:

"In addressing the question posed by the Dallas schoolteacher, Bill was recognizing the basic tensions that school districts and the legislature face. In trying to create a funding system that is fair and meets everyone's needs, there are competing principles. First, that all students, regardless of their economic situation and where in the state they live, have equal access to a quality education. Second, that local communities are able to make decisions about how much money they put towards education."

This approach may sound like a no-brainer, but Democrats usually haven't been so forthcoming about letting parents put what they want into their child's school. They often focus on equalizing funding. What White is saying allows for the fact that some schools could end up with more money beyond what the state puts in through its funding formulas.

That was a clear --and politically smart -- nod to surbuban voters, who often are passionate about building up their children's schools. White, a Democrat, knows he needs some suburbanites to win in the fall.

More than the politics of his position, the state shouldn't shoo away parents who want to improve upon the state's investment, as long as they don't run afoul of school finance laws.

Make no mistake: White also is signaling that the state has a clear responsibility to adequately fund all schools. That's his way of saying to urban and rural Texans that the state can't shortchange them. (As a Dallas resident, I'm glad to hear that.)

These funding issues get quite technical, but basically the state has a legal responsibility to give all schools access to an equal amount of wealth. After that is where things can get tricky. Some don't like to think about schools being free to access other buckets after the state has done its job. But White is giving them some wiggle room.

This is both good policy and good politics.

Here's what I want to hear more about tonight in the Democratic gubernatorial debate:

Bill White, the former Houston mayor who is the frontrunner, says that he wants to "take aggressive action against diploma mills that offer a high school diploma with little education."

What does that mean?

If it means that he is taking an Obama-like line and will shut down failing schools, which is not a popular position with some educators, then that' s a great idea. He's showing a willingness to take on teachers, a traditional Democratic bloc. More than that, he's not giving schools repeated chances to fail students if the campuses don't meet the standards of the state.

But if he means something other than shutting down schools or redesigning them, two actions that have caused a stir when it comes to campuses like Dallas Spruce High School and Austin's Johnston High, then this is not good. It's easy to talk tough, but it's much harder to intervene on behalf of kids. There are all sorts of folks, from principals to teachers to parents to students, who prefer the status quo.

Which does White mean?

I hope we find out tonight.

Editor's Note: Tom Luce, the Dallas attorney who heads the National Math and Science Initiative, is the second guest blogger to weigh in on our discussion about what it takes to spread progress across a big urban school district. A former assistant secretary of education under George W. Bush, Luce had these thoughts:

The comment I encounter most often when talking about education across the country is that people say, "Oh my goodness. The problem is so overwhelming. Where do we start?" There is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

But there is hope. We do have American programs that work.

I believe we are proving at the National Math and Science Initiative that one of the most effective approaches to take is to identify those worthy programs that are "tried and true" and then share them with as many students as possible in order to do the most good. We are doing this by replicating math and science programs nationally that have a documented record of success.

Since 2007, NMSI has taken a leadership role in the U.S. in identifying and replicating successful educational programs on a national scale. That is our particular expertise -- "scaling up" programs by expanding them to multiple states, across multiple jurisdictions, and at multiple universities.

While there have been a host of pilot programs focused on the math and science achievement gap, NMSI is one of the few organizations that has rigorously researched and then replicated programs that have produced immediate and sustainable results. We then organize public-private partnerships and coalitions to fund the expansion of the programs, including corporate and foundation donations as well as federal and state funding.

At this moment, NMSI is implementing two "lighthouse programs" that are showing the way ahead. Last year, our AP Training and Incentive Program to help students succeed in college-level classes produced a 52 percent increase in the Advanced Placement courses passed. That is nine times greater than the national average. Just as importantly, this program can help reduce the minority achievement gap - our participating schools showed a 71 percent increase in AP courses passed by African American and Hispanic students.

We also are training a new generation of skilled math and science teachers through the UTeach program. This popular program is now being expanded to 20 universities around the country. Enrollment has nearly doubled. But we have dozens more universities on our waiting list.

Both of these programs were commended in the 2005 National Academies' report "Rising Above the Gathering Storm" for having 10 years of data showing they produce positive results. Both of these programs are proving that you can take a good idea and make it even better by sharing it. "Scaling up" is the kind of commonsense approach that can make a real difference in our country's math and science gap. It's not just hopeful, it's do-able if more people pitch in.

You could see this move coming a long time ago.

A few years back, as states started getting nervous about No Child Left Behind holding them responsible for their students meeting the educational standards of their own states, their officials started fiddling with their collars and asking for more breathing room, even weakening their standards. Now comes the Obama administration, and its education secretary Arne Duncan is floating the idea of giving up on No Child's goal of seeing how many students in each school are making significant progress each year. He's also suggesting Congress give up on the goal of children being proficient in their subjects by 2014, calling that part of No Child "utopian."

If the administration has its way with these two changes, let's just be honest: We as a nation will be giving up on kids, especially the many poor and minority children who are stuck in failing schools. We as a nation will be saying, we don't think you can learn at grade level. And we don't think we should ask you to achieve at an academic rate that will prepare you for a complicated world. That's the hard, cold reality, so if we decide to go down that road, let's just be realistic about what we are doing.

Now, with that said, there are certainly ways and places to improve upon No Child Left Behind, which was passed nine years ago with overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both houses. No law is sacred, and there are ways to improve upon this bill.

Here are a few:

1. Allow states to show progress with their students, even if not all are proficient. In short, let them distinguish between the improving ones and the terrible ones.

That's called "differentiated consequences," and it's a concept that Bush Education Secretary Margaret Spellings used to let states show they are making some progress, just not enough progress. The idea allows schools to keep working with struggling students without being put on a black list.

2. Make sure the standards of each state prepare kids to graduate from high school with the skills for either a good trade job or college. Duncan talks about college/career readiness being a new goal, so pursue it, much like Texas did in adopting a new school accountability system in 2009.

But let's be specific about what these terms mean and what we expect kids to do to earn that recognition. Fuzziness will not help them compete in a world where others are rushing to become the next global economic powers.

3. Give states more money to improve low-performing campuses. This is a no-brainer, as long as the concept is more money-and-strong standards. If it is more money and less accountability, then this reform will make no sense at all.

4. Extend the date that states must have their students learning at grade level. I liked the 2014 goal because that let states take their entering kindergarteners in 2002, when the law kicked in, and get them at grade level by the time they walked across the stage and collected their high school diploma in 2014.

If Duncan and Congress think that's too hard, kick it back a few years. Just don't give up on it.

Duncan talked about some of these changes in a recent New York Times article. But he really didn't give many details. Evidently, he thinks that's something he and Congress will work on over the next few months.

What we need to hear next are precise details. This isn't about No Child per se, but the concepts in the landmark bill. If there's a way to build upon the idea of measuring students annually and seeing whether they are being left behind, then let's do it. But if that's not what's going on here, let's be honest with the students in Dallas, Los Angeles, Chicago and everyplace else.

Whether the answer is yes or no, I'd like to know the reasons behind your decision. It's for a story I'm working on today. Feel free to post a comment or e-mail me directly. Thanks!

(Editor's Note: Charles Miller, the Houston businessman who once headed the University of Texas board of regents, put out an email last week to a list of contacts around the nation about the effort by the Obama administration and numerous governors to create a common core of national standards for schools. The Education Front received his comments, which we are posting today. The email provoked an exchange among some of the nation's leading education experts.)

Recent events have put a spotlight on a national debate and movement about setting curriculum standards for our K-12 public schools, that is, determining what it is we want our children to learn and who should decide that. Historically that has been a state function but recently there has been more than a lot of chatter about "national curriculum standards". An Obama administration challenge grant program---Race to The Top--- has elevated the issue and the Texas position has been especially noticeable and unique.

There are only two states, Texas and Alaska which have not been participating in a voluntary effort to construct national (not federal) curriculum standards for K-12. The leadership effort for this national common standards movement included the National Governors Association, state higher education officers and a non-profit group which includes some business and community leaders.

This national effort to produce a set of standards has resulted in some early outlines of standards for English and math. However some serious questions are beginning to be raised: Who are the people assigned to actually write these "voluntary" standards and are they really representative of any consensus or are they cherry picked by elite educrats and politicians for predetermined outcomes? The specifics to date are not promising.

Contrary to the Reader Information, we do plan to include a healthy dose of your comments.

Who will score the most points on education policy? They all say that education is the state's top priority, but who will present the best detailed plan for how to close achievement gaps?

Last week, Education Week gave Texas a D for its school funding policies, This week, the National Council on Teacher Quality has given us a C- for the quality of our teachers.

It seems to me these issues -- school finance and teacher quality -- would make for an excellent line of questioning in Friday night's gubernatorial debate between Kay Hutchison and Rick Perry.

As background, here are the grades the National Council on Teacher Quality, which is supported by a number of foundations, including the Gates Foundation and the Houston Foundation, gave to particular elements of our teacher corps:

Delivering well-prepared teachers: C
Expanding the teaching pool: B-
Identifying effective new teachers: D
Retaining effective new teaches : C-
Existing ineffective new teachers: D

The report also made these findings:

*Texas makes evidence of student learning the preponderant criterion in teacher evaluations, but it does not require annual evaluations for all teachers.

*Texas's tenure policies do not consider what should count the most about teacher performance: classroom effectiveness. The state does not require that districts collect or consider evidence of teacher effectiveness as part of tenure decisions.

*Texas makes it too difficult for districts to attempt to dismiss poor performers by failing to articulate a policy for dismissing teachers for poor performance separate from dismissal policies for criminal and morality violations. Texas also allows multiple appeals of dismissals.

*Texas's requirements for the preparation of elementary teachers do not ensure that these teachers are well prepared to teach mathematics. While the state's policies do address the science of reading instruction, Texas fails to ensure that its elementary teachers are well prepared to teach reading through an appropriate test.

*Texas does more than most states to exercise oversight of its teacher preparation programs.

*Although Texas claims to offer an alternative route to certification, its route is not selective and does not provide preparation that meets the immediate needs of new teachers.

*Texas sets low expectations for what special education teachers should know, despite state and federal expectations that special education students should meet the same high standards as other students.

I'm particularly struck by how hard it is for the state to get rid of bad teachers. This has been a problem for at least 15 years and it is really frustrating. Sure, teachers deserve due process. But if they aren't effective, they don't deserve a job that comes at the expense of a child's education.

I sure hope we hear about these issues in the governor's race.

Arne Duncan just did a conference call with reporters and the headlines are:

*Obama's cutting the domestic budget elsewhere, but not in education, at least not in aggregate. Overall, education spending would go up six percent if the president's 2011 budget is adopted.

*The budget will focus on a "massive investment" in making college more accessible.

*Obama considers education the civil rights issue of our day and the way out of poverty.

*Duncan wants to see the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reuathorized this year. He cited bipartisan support for the renewal, although he acknowledged it needs to get done by August or mid-term elections will take over. (ESEA is the law that governs No Child Left Behind.)

I agree education is the civil rights issue of our day. And while money isn't always the answer to our problems, and I'm a deficit hawk who wants to see entitlements overhauled, I'm glad to see him pushing forward with investments here, especially in trying to get more students into college. We can't let up on this front.

Contrary to the Reader Information above, we do welcome comments in this event. We look forward to your interaction, although comments will not be posted automatically.

Is Obama's plan to put off student loans a meaningful step toward addressing the high cost of higher ed? What else do you expect him to say about education tonight?

State Education Commissioner Robert Scott said Tuesday that the next generation of student tests in Texas will be called STAAR - or the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness. Scott announced the change from TAKS to STAAR at an annual conference of school administrators in Austin, saying students will first take the new exams in the 2011-12 school year.

The STAAR will include the 12 new end-of-course exams for high school students that will be launched with freshmen entering school in the fall of 2011. Students will take three end-of-course tests in each of four core subject areas - English, math, science and social studies. To get a diploma, students will have to get a passing average in each subject area as well as pass their classes.

Testing in grades 3-8 also will be modified as the STAAR is introduced into schools and results from grade to grade will be evaluated against performance standards for the English III and Algebra II exams administered to high school students. Scott said the new tests will be more rigorous than the TAKS exams, which have been around since 2003 and which were used in deciding whether to promote students in grades 3, 5 and 8. In addition, Scott said the new performance rating system for schools - based on STAAR results - will debut in 2013.

I don't know whether President Obama's spending freeze will affect his new plans for Race to the Top awards. If so, then what I'm saying here is moot.

But if the next round of Race to the Top spending is still in play, something like $1.35 billion for the 2011 fiscal year, then here are some thoughts:

I like that Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan are proposing a new wrinkle in RTP funding by allowing school districts to apply directly to Washington for funds. Local districts wouldn't have to go through their states for funding in the next round of awards.

Sure, this new approach is in effect a political dig at Rick Perry for refusing Race to the Top funds for Texas this year. But the real emphasis should be on whether this change could help local districts. And I think it could.

I mean, the money could help them as they try to "repurpose" failing schools, gauge teachers for their effectiveness and reward school districts that are raising the achievement bar. I don't see what's so wrong with that.

The goal should be to improve student progress and those bucks could help here in Dallas or in any other local district.

Last week a national report gave Texas a D+ for its school funding system. Today, Texas lawmakers said they'll study ways to improve school finance.

Granted, it's just a coincidence. But it's another reminder that like most states, Texas' method of funding public education is far from perfect. (For another local, recent reminder, check out Diane Rado's story about Dallas ISD having to share property tax money with other districts.)

Debates over school finance usually focus on two core issues: Adequacy (How much money is spent overall, and is it enough to achieve our state's educational goals?) and Equity (no matter the size of the financial pie, is it split fairly among school districts?). Judging by the following comments, not to mention the current economy, I bet Texas lawmakers will concentrate more on the latter.

From Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst: "Few issues are more critical to the future of Texas than the quality of our public schools and the education they provide to our young people. I expect the members of this committee to engage the public and come up with the best ideas to ensure that Texas is using taxpayers funds responsibly to provide our students with a world-class education."

From House Speaker Joe Straus: "Every child in Texas public schools deserves a quality education. While we fund important priorities, we must also ensure that we use each taxpayer dollar wisely."

School finance eggheads can read the whole release by clicking below.

State Board of Education members Friday narrowly approved a change in proposed U.S. history standards that calls on students to be taught about leading conservative groups from the 1980s and 1990s - with no similar requirement for liberal groups. Pushed by board member Don McLeroy, R-College Station, the provision says students should learn about "key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s" including Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly.

The amendment was approved on a 7-6 vote, with the social conservative bloc on the board providing all but one of the affirmative voters. McLeroy explained that the history standards already were "rife with leftist political periods and events - the populists, the progressives, the New Deal and the Great Society. Including material about the conservative resurgence...provides some political balance to the document." Among the conservative groups that will be covered in history are the National Rifle Association, Moral Majority, Heritage Foundation and Contract with America.

Board members, who began consideration of social studies standards on Wednesday, continued their deliberations on Thursday, adopting scores of amendments - with McLeroy offering the bulk of the changes. Among the proposals that divided board members was one to add the late Sen. Edward Kennedy to a list of important historical figures that students should learn about. Republicans voted down the board's five Democrats on that amendment and also rejected a second proposal to include the Kennedy family in the standards.