Follow the Money

In a front-page article in Saturday’s Washington Post, Amit R. Paley reports that the Justice Department in investigating profiteering and cronyism connected to the No Child Left Behind law.

At the center of the investigation is Reading First, a Department of Education program which provides $1 billion in grants each year to improve reading for children in kindergarten through third grade. Under NCLB, third grade students are required to pass the reading test to advance to the fourth grade. Education Department employees who oversaw these grants, including Christopher J. Doherty, former director of Reading First, steered recipients to purchase certain textbooks and tests with their grant money. Doherty’s wife was a paid consultant for Direct Instruction, which investigators said Doherty “tried to force schools to use.”

Dynamic Measurement Group, developer of another reading test, made $1.3 million after being “endorsed by a Reading First evaluation panel.” Half-owner of the company, Roland H. Good III, was a member of the panel. Other members of the panel also profited from Reading First endorsements. In fact, 7 of the 24 tests endorsed by the Reading First panel had ties to panel members.

In Texas, vigilance is necessary to insure that everything associated with the multi-million dollar testing industry is above board. Lucrative contracts to develop and score tests, in addition to teaching materials to prepare students for the tests, provide ample opportunity for cronyism and influence peddling to become part of the selection process. TAKS and NCLB should not become avenues for the well-connected to enrich themselves at tax-payer expense.

Attacking TAKS

Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, and Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, have filed legislation which will replace the state-mandated TAKS test with end-of-course tests in public high schools. If passed, the bill (SB 1031; HB 2236) will go into effect starting with the '09-'10 school year. To graduate, students entering ninth grade that year would have to accumulate 840 points from twelve tests covering these core subjects: English I, English II, English III; Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II; Biology, Chemistry, and Physics; and World Geography, World History, and U. S. History. Each test would also count 15 percent of a student's grade in the course.

Other provisions of the bill include a requirement that the exams measure “annual improvement in student achievement.” While details are not yet available, this assessment would probably involve comparing one year’s class with the previous year’s class, rather than assessing individual student progress. In addition, eighth grade students would take a college readiness diagnostic test, followed by the PSAT in their sophomore year, again for diagnostic purposes. These mandatory tests would be paid for by the state, along with the SAT or ACT, which would be offered to students in their junior year, but would not be required.

Senator Shapiro’s bill contains much to support. End-of-course tests make sense for high school students, and counting the tests as part of semester grades gives students added incentive to do their best. More important, teachers might feel less pressured to spend instructional time on test prep and drill, which many feel is dumbing down the curriculum.

Still, questions arise about the costs involved. TAKS, only three years old, cost millions to develop, field test, and benchmark. If TAKS is inadequate, who is accountable for that waste of tax dollars? After all, we previously had end-of-course state exams in many high school courses, but TAKS replaced them. Which companies stand to gain from new test development? What connections, if any, do these companies have with state legislators?

Perhaps the most fundamental question, however, is this: When will legislators stop jumping from one new idea to another and stick to a course of action long enough for it to be implemented?

No COLA for Texas Teachers

A 3% raise doesn't sound like much, especially when electricity and gasoline prices seem to have soared by double digits in recent months. Still, Social Security's Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) of 3.3% for 2007 at least partially offsets these rising costs for seniors, even if most of the raise is subsumed by higher Medicare premiums.

Retired Texas teachers are not so lucky.

The Teacher Retirement System of Texas has no COLA provision. Instead, retired teachers must lobby--that is, beg--their legislators each biennium for any increase in their benefits. The last time they were successful was 2001. Since then, inflation has eroded their purchasing power by more than 15%.

Senator Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville, has filed Senate Bill 492 to give retired teachers a one-time 5% raise. While Senator Lucio is to be lauded for his efforts, such stop-gap measures do not solve the underlying problem, the lack of an automatic COLA provision.

As currently funded, however, the Teacher Retirement System could not afford COLA increases. Here's why: Until the 1996-97 biennium, the state contribution rate to TRS was 7.31%, while teachers paid in 6.4%. A budget crunch that year prompted the legislature to lower the state's contribution to 6%, the minimum allowed by the Texas Constitution. Legislators promised that the reduction would be temporary, but 10 years later, it is still in place. As a result, TRS has lost billions in funding.

Despite the possibility of budget surpluses this biennium, the legislature is unlikely to restore state funding of TRS to 7.31%. State Affairs Chairman Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, agrees that the state should increase its funding, perhaps matching teachers' contributions of 6.4%, but he has suggested that this increase may come from requiring school districts to contribute to TRS, as well.

Senator Duncan is thus advocating a familiar course of action for our Republican-run legislature: Claim to be holding the line against raising taxes, while pushing responsibility for funding education to the local level. Taxes must still be raised to meet the unfunded mandate, but Senator Duncan and his colleagues get political cover.

In the meantime, Texas' retired teachers must try to survive on their steadily eroding pensions. Let them eat cake, anyone?