THE EDUCATION FRONT

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

That's what KWTX in Waco is reporting.

I know where you'll be at 7 p.m. Thursday. But what are you doing up until kickoff? Are you planning to work all day, or will you slip out early for some pre-game pageantry? It's for a story on whether the BCS Game against 'Bama is going to be an extended holiday for Texas fans. E-mail me directly if you like.

Meanwhile, to get you in the burnt orange spirit, the University of Texas just launched its official iPhone App. Read the pre-game hype, see what's happening on campus, read President Bill Powers' new blog and more. But I'm still waiting for what would arguably the most popular feature on college campuses: the Parking Finder App.

After reading Time's Person of the Year cover story on Ben Bernanke last night, it reminded me why economics ought to be part of the collegiate core curriculum. Perhaps it is in some schools. I haven't checked lately. But I have thought for a long time that economics is one of the few courses that help explain the world in which we live.
For that reason, it should be part of a core curriculum, alongside languages, math and science and history.

I mean, look at the issues that Federal Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke has faced over the last year: He's been trying to keep the worldwide economy from melting down, correct a sub-prime mortgage crisis and deal with failing banks. And the tools he's been using are front page news: pumping trillions into the economy through easing up on the money supply, taking interest rates down to zero, loaning money to failing companies, including foreign banks. And he's been trying to do this while trying to avoid both deflation and inflation.

I'm not here to debate his policies, but I do think it's hard for us to follow these moves without some knowledge of economics. And we have a self-interest in understanding them. They affect us directly, just as decisions made by Fed chiefs in the future will impact us.

I really struggled with finance courses at the University of Texas, often because they were dry and pertained to a smaller universe of issues. But economics courses brought the world alive to me.

This was back in the middle 1970s and stagflation was this godawful- sounding term that hung over everything. Before my economics courses, I had no idea what it meant. But, thanks to my economics teachers, I felt like I could pick up the paper and have a better idea what was going on.

Later, I took some graduate courses in economics and felt the same thing. Not only did they explain what was happening in our country, but they offered a chance to understand how our system compared to those of other nations.

Of course, much has changed since then. The global economy has compressed the world. In my book, that has made an understanding of economics more crucial.

What are your thoughts? Should economics be part of a college's core curriculum?

Editor's Update: SMU president Gerald Turner filed his response today, so it is now part of our post.

We asked, and they answered. Here are several responses from university presidents across North Texas about how colleges can help students graduate on time. As more replies come in from other local university presidents, I will post them.

The popular image of college-bound students is that they are sweating blood to get into that all-coveted college of choice. And the more blue-ribbon the school, the more enthusiastically they seek that credential.

But a new study by Public Agenda, which the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded, shows something different. Students are more concerned about getting into a college they can afford.

The study also found that more than half the students surveyed took six years to get out of college, if they graduated at all. Not because all of them are lazy no-goods piling up beer cans as they flip the remote around from their couches. But because many are going a semester or two to college, dropping out to earn enough money for the next couple of semesters, and then repeating the pattern until they graduate or dropout.

Texas legislators certainly have heard this story. Before this year's session began, a special committee looking at how to keep kids in college heard compelling stories about serious students dropping in and out of college.

The squeeze in the economy is likely to extend this trend for some time. And it is hastening the need for universities to come up with a new business model, just like many industries, including those of us in journalism, are having to rethink how they do their work.

Austin College President Marjorie Hass commented on this in a recent editorial board interview, when she noted how schools are trying to think strategically about their missions.

Some of the new approaches include students going to two years to community colleges, then two years at a four-year institution. Some schools are even considering getting students a degree in three years.

I'm going to query several local university presidents to see what they have to say about this challenge. As soon as I get answers, I will post them. (It could take a couple of days, so stay tuned.)

Meanwhile, is this phenomenon real to you or your family? If so, what solutions would you recommend to make it easier for students to graduate on time?

My colleague Diane Rado pointed out an interesting trend in today's story on the disparity in AP course offerings. A growing number of high schools are switching from AP to dual enrollment programs, where students take community college classes.

I've heard arguments for both approaches. Some prefer Advanced Placement because students must pass the corresponding AP exams to receive college credit — just taking the class won't suffice. Others push dual enrollment because it's a real college class and the credits transfer more easily.

What do you think — which approach is more rigorous? Which one is better for Texas students, or does it depend?

Texas has serious California envy when it comes to higher ed. I could open a college trust fund for my kid if I had a dollar for every time a Texas lawmaker or college president lamented we have only three top-notch research universities compared to California's nine. Or that UC-Berkeley boasts more world-class faculty than all of Texas.

Well, Texas, here's something to definitely not envy: Students rioting at UCLA after the University of California regents approved a 32 percent tuition hike for next fall.

Ironic footnote #1: This video was shot by the National Inflation Association, which just happened to be in LA producing a documentary. I know what you're thinking, and I'm amazed, too — there's something called the National Inflation Association?

Ironic footnote #2: The president of the UC System is none other than former UT System chancellor Mark Yudof.

Ironic footnote #3: This week Texas higher ed commissioner Raymund Paredes spoke in Dallas and cited a recent Time cover story, "Why California is Still America's Future." Paredes — who spent 30 years at UCLA — said: "One of the things that works well in California, even during this extraordinary budget crisis, is higher education."

My colleague Bruce Tomaso explains how:

The cover story of the new Texas Monthly is a look back at the Texas A&M Bonfire tragedy of Nov. 18, 1999. Twelve students were killed and dozens were injured in the collapse of the massive log structure that was being assembled by Aggies so they could ... well, set it on fire.

Texas Monthly calls Bonfire "the most passionately observed collegiate tradition in Texas -- if not the world." Bonfire, as much as any A&M ritual, embodies the uniqueness of Aggie culture, expressed by this saying: "From the outside looking in you can't understand it, and from the inside looking out you can't explain it"

In this short video, two Texas Monthly staffers, Creative Director T.J. Tucker and Senior Editor Pamela Colloff, discuss the making of the magazine's cover - a computer-generated image.

"The concern that everybody had was: Can you make this look real?" Tucker says. He adds: "We wanted, you know, every single log to look different and original."

The video also includes a history of Bonfire. It began, Colloff says, in 1909. "It just started as a pile of trash ... Chairs would mysteriously disappear from campus and end up in the Bonfire."

Cedar Valley College in Lancaster welcomes a guest speaker Friday on a topic that's hardly controversial: the importance of leadership.

What's stirring debate are the credentials of the speaker, a tipster told me.

Dr. Eric Gravenberg has spent many years working in student recruitment and enrollment, mostly at campuses in California. He coordinates the African American Male Initiative, a national effort to help black men succeed in college.

But his degrees include a PhD in educational administration from Columbus University, which is not accredited by any federally recognized agency. This CBS story from 2004 describes Columbus as "a diploma mill Louisiana shut down." Since then it has relocated to Mississippi and then Alabama.

Gravenberg will receive $1,000 for his talk, a spokeswoman for the Dallas County Community College District told me. He's also presenting a Webinar later Friday and will receive 45% of the proceeds (so far 15 people have registered at $89 each), with CVC getting the rest. (He also did a Webinar in April for free.)

Spokeswoman Ann Hatch said neither CVC nor the college district was aware of any questions about Gravenberg's degree. "Our administrators met him through other professional affiliations and that's how they invited him to participate" at CVC, she said. I emailed both Gravenberg and Columbus to find out more — I'll let you know if I hear back.

So, what do you think, Ed Front readers? Does it matter if a college hosts and pays a speaker with a questionable degree, albeit considerable higher ed experience?

UPDATE: It's illegal to use a degree from Columbus in Texas. Just what does "use" mean, though? I've put a call into the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to find out more.

A Texas A&M group surveyed current and former students on what they want in their next president. But it's the answers to another question — what are the most important issues facing students? — that seem most intriguing.

Here's what Aggies found most important (rounded to the nearest 5 percent):

* Continued reputation of providing excellent education at reasonable cost (95% agree)
* Student leadership opportunities (85%)
* More focus on past and current traditions (80%)
* Keeping tuition low as possible (75%)

And the least important?

* More students in the Corps of Cadets (only 40% agree that's important)
* Greater racial and ethnic diversity to reflect changing face of TX (45%)

Granted, it was an unscientific online survey. But more than 11,000 people took part, including some 6,000 former and 3,900 current students. I wish we could see how each group voted and not just aggregate results. Does one group care about traditions more than another? And which traditions (Bonfire? Aggie Muster? Apparently not the Corps.) Does one group care less about diversity than another?

Interestingly, more than 10 percent of respondents said they "strongly disagree" that diversity's a top student issue. A&M leaders have tried in recent years to bring more minority and first-generation kids to College Station.

You can see the full survey results here. Also, check out earlier results here, along with sample comments from students, alumni and faculty. For instance: "Traditions are simultaneously Texas A&M's biggest strength and potential weakness. Current traditions are important, but students need MORE experience OUTSIDE of the current traditions to build their own experiences."

House Speaker Joe Straus spoke today to a packed house at the University of North Texas Dallas campus, mainly about how 2009 was a great legislative session for higher ed, which received an extra $1.2 billion in funding.

"Not every student can travel to Austin or Lubbock or College Station for an education .... It's more important than ever that we bring greater educational opportunities to our urban areas," said Straus, who's from San Antonio.

UNT Chancellor and former state rep Lee Jackson said Straus embodied the words of Jimi Hendrix, the legendary philosopher-guitarist: "Knowledge speaks. WIsdom listens."

Jackson said it's no accident the greatest session for higher ed in a generation came under an urban speaker (take that, Tom Craddick!). One example: Jackson said more education money goes to campuses based on enrollment. I believe he was knocking the longtime popular practice of steering earmarks to colleges based on politics. In the past many state investments (a new pharmacy school, new graduate programs, new dorms) went by default to rural areas, Jackson said, "in communities where there was little or no population growth."

Of course, it wouldn't be a higher ed gathering in 2009 without mentioning Tier One (as in, building up more national-class research campuses), and the Speaker and speakers did not disappoint. Straus gave a shout-out to Prop 4, the November ballot initiative that would provide extra money to UNT and the six other Tier One Wannabes.

Jackson also gave an update on the UNT Dallas campus, which will become a free-standing school next year (right now it's part of the Denton mothership). A second UNT-D building is supposed top open in August 2010 and give the growing campus a cafeteria, laboratories and more classroom and faculty office space.

Rick Perry and Kay Hutchison on the same stage? At the same time? And not for their showdown debate before the GOP gubernatorial primary?

Yes, it could happen, if both momentarily put aside their differences to campaign together for the constitutional amendment that would help Texas grow more nationally recognized research universities. They're known as Tier One schools, and Texas now only has three of them: UT, A&M and Rice.

But the Legislature decided this spring to invest in a fund that would help finance more Tier One schools over time. This amendment basically would codify that goal in the state constitution.

Several universities are eager to reach that rank, and we had an impressive array of talent in our editorial offices this week to back the amendment. The presidents or chancellors of Texas Tech, the University of Houston, the University of Texas at Dallas, the University of North Texas and the University of Texas at Arlington came in together to urge passage of it.

The fact they were all there highlights how they've overcome their differences to support a common pool of Tier One dollars, instead of trying to get the Legislature to just fund their university's research aspirations. In the past, quibbling over who should get the money has stopped the Legislature from putting more into the Tier One effort.

Along with the university chiefs were James Huffines, head of the UT board of regents, and Bill Hobby, the former lieutenant governor. Huffines had a good line at the end: " I bet you haven't seen so many university presidents in one room at the same time."

He was right, and each of those schools are already working on matching any funds they get from the state to become research powerhouses. The advantage to the state is that "jobs follow brains," as UT-Dallas president David Daniel put it succintly.

Since this amendment is good for the schools and good for the state, here's my thought: Wouldn't it be great if Perry and Hutchison appeared together at an event to support its passage?

They both are strong advocates for education. And Perry already has held one event to spotlight this proposal.

Appearing together, however, would show the rest of the state just how important this proposition is to the state's future. There would be great symbolism to see them put aside their barbs and unite behind Texas.

What do you say Governor Perry and Senator Hutchison? You both love Texas. What about coming together for its good?

For seven special public universities out there — and you know who you are — it's all about the quest for national research (aka "Tier One") status. Like an academic Rorschach ink blot, most any big exciting news these days can be seen through the Tier One lens. Consider these new fall enrollment reports, in which every university says it has the Most Students Ever. (Sound familiar?)

Your job is to match the quote or statement with the correct university.

1. This enrollment includes an 11 percent increase in graduate students, which is important to the university's continued development as a national research university.

2. "Of course, this is good news any time, but it's particularly significant now as we're pushing toward national research university status."

3. The record, the greatest year-to-year jump since 2006, reflects awareness on the part of students that they are receiving a quality education at the emerging research university, one of seven in the state striving to attain Tier One status.

4. "This growth at the graduate level contributes to (the university's) strategic goal of becoming a premier public research university and demonstrates that (the university) continues to be an institution of first choice."

A. UT-El Paso press release, (preliminary fall enrollment of 21,011, up 2.7% from 2008)
B. UT-San Antonio President Ricardo Romo (29,133, up 2.5%)
C. U of North Texas press release (36,206, up 4.3%)
D. UT-Arlington President Jim Spaniolo (28,084, up 11.9%)

Keep reading for the answers and winner of TO bonus points.

It's Superlative Week in Texas higher ed. Consider the headlines:

"UT Arlington announces record enrollment"
"A&M Fall Enrollment Record High"
"Baylor Announces Largest Enrollment in University History"

I'm hearing similar predictions from Texas Tech, Austin College, Stephen F. Austin, U of Houston-Victoria and more. What's going on? Is it the same phenomenon we've seen of late at community colleges?

Let's dig a little deeper. Not all enrollment records, it appears, were created equal.

* UTA is up 12 percent from a year ago, from 25,000 to 28,000 students. Officials there call it "a milestone of double-digit growth that reflects the University's intense focus on students and increasing diversity of academic programs."

* Texas A&M reports nearly 49,000 students in College Station. Wow! But it's a huge campus to begin with. Enrollment is up 748 students from last year, which works out to just a 1.6 percent increase.

* Baylor, meanwhile, is just over 14,600 students. But that's only 73 more bodies on campus than last year. And that works out to half a percent more.

Seems like some of these flashy headlines reflect something very simple: There are more living, breathing humans around to go to college. Texas' population keeps growing, so of course so will university enrollments.

But that can't be all. UTA's 12 percent increase is pretty stunning. And many universities say the real success stories are in the rising number of Hispanic and black students (though still not enough Hispanics, based on the state's "Closing the Gaps" goals).

Let's get some perspective from the U.S. Department of Education:

"Colleges and universities anticipate an enrollment record of 18.4 million students ... Among those are unprecedented numbers of African Americans and Hispanics. Driving the overall surge has been increases in both the traditional college-age population and rising enrollment rates."

Still, I'd like to hear more theories. Is it the recession? Aggressive recruiting? A statistical hiccup?

Oh, and keep in mind all of these enrollment figures are preliminary.

Texas Monthly's BurkaBlog says that Aggie-in-chief Rick Perry predicts Bonfire will return to campus as early as next year.

"I will not be surprised if it happens by 2011, maybe even 2010. I think Bonfire will be back on campus. The kids will have the experience again," Perry told the magazine for an upcoming story on the 10th anniversary of the Bonfire collapse, which killed 12 people. (It's also the 100th anniversary of the first Bonfire.)

How would Bonfire be brought back to campus? TexMo asked. "I'd leave that up to the board and the current administration to sit down and decide the safety parameters, the oversight, etc."

But don't round up the redpots just yet. The comments from College Station?

"As far as the system goes, there is absolutely nothing on any upcoming agenda or any official kinds of conversations involving the regents about bonfire at all," A&M System spokesman Rod Davis said. "Ultimately they would have to approve any changes to the current status, which is that there is no bonfire."

And this statement from A&M's interim president, R. Bowen Loftin:

"I think it would take an extraordinarily large amount of interest on the part of our students for us to consider building Bonfire on campus again. I don't hear the students rising up and demanding it. To have it (the Bonfire accident) happen to you one time is something that you can get past. If you did it again, and it happened again, you have no way to excuse yourself."

OK, what do you all think?

The AP reported last week that the University of Texas at Austin was pulling out of a program that gives National Merit Scholars money to attend the state's flagship university. This naturally looks bizarre, given that the state's economy increasingly depends upon ramping up the state's universities and their intellectual capital.

I got on the phone Friday with UT and talked with Tom Melecki, the school's director of student financial services. My takeaway is that this is bad because it could lead to a brain-drain away from UT. But it is not as bad as it looks. It depends upon how much UT tries to get National Merit Scholars other scholarship dollars.

Here's what I'm talking about:

1. The school indeed is shifting money away from National Merit Scholars and putting the same bucks into aid for needy students. That won't start until the 2009-2010 entering class, so no existing scholar will be affected. Still, UT, which has as many National Merit Scholars as any university except Harvard, risks driving away top-rung students.

2. National Merit Scholars still can get scholarship aid in the future. They will compete against other students, whether in a need-based pool or through some other public or private scholarship that UT candidates can tap into. Melecki said they would likely be a strong candidate for money from one of those funds.

3. UT is not alone. Melecki reports that Berkeley, Michigan, the University of Virginia and UCLA do not give National Merit Scholars automatic money. (A&M, Tech, OU, SMU and TCU do.)

4. The shift away from National Merit Scholars is a function of the bad economy. Melecki stressed that the demand for need-based aid is increasing. And the economy is playing a role in the growing need.

Once the economy improves, who knows? Maybe UT reinstitutes the program. I'm not saying that absolutely will happen, but it could.

5. If the state continues to pick up its funding of the needs-based TEXAS Grant program, and the feds keep putting more dough into Pell Grants, UT would have more money available for need-based scholarship. That could help the school return to automatically funding National Merit Scholars.

Don't get me wrong. I hate this, but it's also a function of the world in which we live. The economy's bad, more people need help and there isn't enough public aid to go around. Whether this turns into a calamity for UT and even the state depends upon how hard UT officials work to get National Merit Scholars help from other pools of financial aid.

Rumors are circling the higher edusphere that Texas Tech, which played coy yesterday and did not disclose how much money it's raised for "Tier One" (aka Texas Research Incentive Program) purposes, is announcing a windfall today, in the neighborhood of $20 million.

Will update you as soon as we hear something. If this were wrestling I might even call it a Tier One Smackdown.

UPDATE, 1:23 p.m. Holy Red Raiders! Texas Tech just announced it has received private gifts totaling $24.3 million, with $21.5 million of that eligible for matching Tier One funds from the state. The gifts come from 20 individuals and eight corporations.

I'll check the math but it looks like the Magnificent Seven have pretty much cleared the bank for all two years of Tier One funds.

"We are thankful to everyone for their support of Texas Tech University and our goal of becoming the state's next national research university," Tech chancellor Kent Hance said in a statement. "The fact that the fund is oversubscribed for 2010 as of today shows that this is good for all seven emerging research universities and will be extremely beneficial for the state of Texas."

UPDATE, 6:07 p.m. My, you're a spirited, chatty bunch. Rivalries live on, whether it's the gridiron, the research front or the chess board (surprised no one's mentioned that one yet).

Anyhow, to answer some questions from today.

* Tech deposited all of that money in the bank on Monday. So they're eligible right along with the other six campuses that already announced.

* Someone thought Tech had amassed $50 million. Tech says it's raised $24.3 million and qualifies for another $21.5 m from the state, so there's a potential windfall of up to $45.8 m. But the Magnificent Seven are asking the state for way more than the $25 million it's giving out this year — and the schools have cleared out most of next year's state funding, too.

* Tech isn't saying where the money came from. Yet.

Today is the first day that seven of the state's public universities — including UT-Arlington, UT-Dallas and U of North Texas — can compete for $25 million in matching state funds designed to help them become major research (aka "Tier One") campuses.

First out the gate: UT-Dallas, which says it has received $16.8 million in private donations, and is therefore eligible for $14.9 million of the state research funds. It's first-come, first-served, so assuming any other campuses make big announcements today, that $25 million will go super-fast.

A little background: House Bill 51, which the Legislature passed this year, provides $50 million to the seven campuses (the three above plus Texas Tech, U of Houston, UT-El Paso and UT-San Antonio) over two years. Schools that receive donations between $100,000 and $10 million can receive anywhere from a 50 to 100 percent match from the state. If When demand exceeds supply, the state will prorate the money, and schools who don't get the full match this year will be first in line for the second pot of $25 million next year.

UT-Dallas president David Daniel has estimated it takes about $70 million per year, per university to build up the next UT-Austin or Texas A&M. So this first pot of $25 million is akin to setting out one bowl of berries for seven very hungry bears.

UPDATE, 1:13 p.m. UT-San Antonio just emailed me that they received $2.5 million from Valero, which makes them eligible for $2.5 million of the state pot. Going, going...

UPDATE, 4:01 p.m. UNT said it's down for about $2.9 million from nine different donors. OK, UTA, UTEP, Houston and Tech, what about you guys?

UPDATE, 4:39 p.m. Houston, we have a report: Gifts today totaling $6.3 million, of which $4.7 million qualifies for a pending match, for a total of $11 million.

UPDATE, 5:08 p.m. UTA reports $3.75 $1.1 million, with an undisclosed state match.

UPDATE, 5:44 p.m. A quick tally shows we've hit $27 about $25 million in eligible matching state funds. And we still haven't heard from Tech or UTEP.

UPDATE, 6:08 p.m. I just talked to UTEP's president, Diana Natalicio. She reports $4 million received, and $3 million of that eligible for state match. I also revised UTA's figures.

UPDATE, 7 p.m. This from Tech: "Numbers are unavailable this evening, we should have something tomorrow." Hmm, maybe they're hitting up donors tonight so they can try to come back with the biggest donor number of all?

The Texas Education Agency announced last week that significantly more Texas students earned higher scores on their Advanced Placement tests in the 2008-2009 school year than over the previous year. Citing College Board data, TEA says that scores of 3 or higher on the tests went up by nine percent for Texas' public school students. (Three, four and five are the top scores on AP exams.)

The data also was good for minority students in Texas' public schools. The percentage of African-Americans scoring three or higher went up 17.3 percent. The percentage of Latinos hitting that mark went up 16 percent.

Educators also look at how many students take AP tests and how many AP tests actually are given. (Students can take AP classes in more than one subject.) That data is one more sign of a school's focus on college readiness, or the lack thereof.

Here, too, there were encouraging signs. According to the TEA, the number of Texas students taking AP tests went up 8 percent and the number of exams given went up 6.4 percent.

AP courses are supposed to be more rigorous and designed to get students ready for college, so this data is one more indication that at least some Texas kids are both aiming for and preparing for college.

I say "at least" because we've talked here before how the state has plenty to worry about when it comes to getting kids ready for college. Either too many kids need remedial work when they get to college, or too few high schoolers are scoring high enough on the annual TAKS test to show they have mastered their subjects.

TEA chief Robert Scott was very candid about this duality in a telephone interview last week. I touch upon what so much conflicting data means in this column about keeping our eyes on the big picture.

The way I see it, Texas schools are both advancing and stalling at the same time. That may be like life, but that can't become our excuse. We need to keep getting more kids ready for college or community college, so they have a shot at good jobs.

I'll stop here and not start sermonizing. Let's celebrate the AP results -- and push for more next year.

America desperately needs a success story in education - and one is on the way. The results are in for the first year of our push to help more American students succeed in college-level courses and they show a quantum leap forward.

The 2009 results just released by the College Board show that the Advanced Placement support program launched in six states just a year ago by the National Math and Science Initiative is dramatically increasing student achievement. The AP exam scores for the 67 vanguard schools in the NMSI program show a stunning average increase of 51 percent in the number of math, science and English exams passed - which is more than nine times the national average increase.

In the last few weeks, we've seen informative, but worrisome stories about how many Texas students require remedial classes at college and how few Dallas students actually master their subjects. At the same time, there have been reports about Texas showing sustained improvement in getting kids ready for college.

Conflicting data like this can be quite bewildering. But think of it this way:

Imagine you are taking off on an airplane flight. Your plane is going up, but you are hitting some air pockets along the way. You're glad to be going in the right direction, but things are choppy.

Let's deal with the climbing part first.

Kay Bailey Hutchison is off and running for governor, and one of the priorities the Republican ticked off yesterday in her announcement speech was Texas' sky-high tuition costs.

That line clearly resonates with parents and students who are heading back to college this month. Financing the bill each semester can be -- and often is --- tricky. (By contrast, when I attended the University of Texas in the middle 1970s, tuition for a 15-hour semester was about $225. What a steal that was.)

As much as complaining about tuition rates is a sure-fire applause generator, finding the right answer is much harder. The Legislature tried this year. Some wanted to take away the ability of universities to set their own rates. Others wanted to limit rate hikes to inflation. Basically, not a lot passed.

I think we're better off letting campuses set their own rates, and then putting some restrictions around that right. Here are a few reasons:

Holly Hacker's story Sunday about Texas high schoolers not being ready for college once they're admitted was certainly a depressing tale. But it is not a new one to college deans, professors and parents. Remedial education has become commonplace. And it's something that goes on across all sorts of demographic profiles, as Holly's story indicates.

Last week, we talked about how to get more Latinos into college. Well, here's one more thought: Enroll more high school grads in summer school programs that prepare them for college.

Dallas Democratic State Rep. Helen Giddings is a big champion of this concept, which would apply to more than Latinos. It would apply to any Texas students who come from a background where college was not part of the equation.

Here's one more conundrum for Texas: More Hispanics are going to college than ever before, but the increase in the numbers doesn't keep pace with the larger growth in Texas' Latino population.

That's the conclusion of a report by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. And I talked yesterday to Raymund Paredes, the commissioner of the board, about the situation. Here are the highlights:

NYT columnist David Brooks made some strong points in favor of community colleges in praising President Obama's plan to invest $12 billion into schools like the Dallas County Community College District. I haven't had time to study this proposal, so I'm not here to say pass it.

However, I do think community colleges are an under-appreciated part of our educational chain. Increasingly, they take students who want college but can't afford four years right out of high school or who don't have the grades to get into their college of choice. And, for a long time, they have taken workers who want to go back and update their skills. In our economy, that's really important.

So, here's my question: Would you invest $12 billion in community colleges, even if it adds to the $10 trillion debt?

I don't see what the Obama administration's big pot of stimulus money for schools has to do with creating jobs and revving up the economy in the short-term. But the money's being spent, so I would rather see it go to good use than bad use.

That's why I'm glad the administration's trying to find the best way to deliver remedial education. Education Secretary Arne Duncan's using part of his big pot of money to improve remedial work, which community colleges and four-year schools spend a lot of time providing.

I wish those in our fair state who think we're at risk of putting too much pressure on kids, especially poor kids, to get ready for college could have been with me yesterday. Ditto for those who think the premium of a college education is way overblown.

I wish they could have heard Monica Washington, a Texarkana high school teacher. Or Ron Rossingh, an Odessa Permian 10th grader. Along with students from Richardson and the Valley who addressed a gathering of teachers and students yesterday in Dallas, these were some of the most determined people I have ever seen. They not only are dreaming big, they have the determination to realize their dreams.

This is one fascinating story about A&M's president stepping down after only a short while on the job. I don't know anything more than what's contained in this good report about A&M's goings on by Holly Hacker in our paper today. But there must be some riveting behind-the-scenes moves.

Michael Landauer, our resident A&M grad on the editorial board, has some thoughts on her exit on the Opinion blog. If I find out more, I will report back.

Meanwhile, your take?

Holly Hacker had a good explanatory piece on the outcome of the Legislature's revision of the 10 percent rule, the law that grants students who finish in the top 10 percent of their high school classes automatic admission to most Texas universities. As has been mentioned here before, and in our editorials, the 10 percent rule has been a good way to expand minority enrollment at Texas schools. It also has helped rural students get into the University of Texas and other colleges.

But the rule has put the UT in a real bind. The school's popular with leading high school grads, so its entering classes are becoming almost completely 10 percent grads. The school has little flexibility in rounding out its student body.

That's why our editorials during this session urged the Legislature to cap the number of top 10 percent grads in a freshman class. We preferred a figure somewhere between 50 percent to 60 percent of a freshman class, which is what the Senate basically ended up with in its bill.

The House, however, took a much different approach. It put a cap on only UT's 10 percent admissions, and the cap was set at only 75 percent of the school's freshman class.

The sponsor of the House bill, GOP Rep. Dan Branch of Dallas, certainly faced a different set of politics in the House. He argues that there weren't enough votes for a cap of 60 percent or so at most universities.

Okay, but this really isn't much reform. As Holly's piece explains, UT will be letting in top nine percenters instead of top 10 percenters. That's not much change.

The real answer is to grow more top universities, which Branch and others made headway in this session in doing. But it's going to be several years before we get more schools that qualify as Tier One research institutions.

Until then, UT and perhaps other schools still are going to face a problem with the 10 percent rule. What's going to happen in the meantime?

Rodger Jones wrote a detailed, superb editorial on Tuesday that explains the importance of the Legislature's decision to create more Tier One universities. The state will realize many spin-offs from growing more research universities, ranging from keeping the Texas economy flush with innovation to giving Texas students who finish in the top 10 percent of their high school classes more options than UT-Austin, Texas A&M and Rice, which are the state's only Tier One universities today.

The Tier One decision, however, was not the only major higher ed decision made in Austin.