From CityLab: The Stadiums That Ate Texas Why are these Dallas suburbs funding the most expensive high school football stadiums ever built?

Good question.

For 2306 - mostly.

- Click here for the article.

In Texas, the old hands say there are only two seasons: spring football and fall football. But lately there’s a year-round game getting played as well: the competition to build the most expensive high school football stadium in the world.

Why would relatively small exurban school districts like McKinney build enormous football stadiums that will sit empty most of the year (and are often less than half-full even on game day)?

Part of the answer involves the area’s projected future growth. The town’s population has tripled over the past fifteen years. In the 2000 Census, McKinney had 54,369 residents. The most recent estimate (July 1, 2015) put the population at 162,898. Rick McDaniel, superintendent of the McKinney ISD and a former high school football coach, seems to be confident that the spectacular new McKinney stadium will soon fill up. “We’re visionaries,” he told the Dallas Morning News, and said that the stadium was part of “a vision for McKinney ISD that will propel us forward for a long time.” (His office did not respond to requests for comment for this story.)

The structure of the Texas school system also seems to encourage such infrastructure spending. By law, each ISD board has the power to call referendums when they choose to raise bond money. They act and can raise funds separately from their local municipal governments. But the bond money can go only toward construction and renovation of facilities, acquisition of land, and purchase of equipment, not toward expanding education opportunities for students or paying for teachers. (Texas ranks 38th out of 50 states in per-pupil education spending; in McKinney, per-pupil expenditures totaled $7,345 in 2013, compared to a national average of $11,841, according to an Education Week analysis of federal data.)

Curtis Rath, a McKinney community activist and blogger on city politics, has been an aggressive critic of this arrangement on his site, Texas Transparency; there, fans and foes of the McKinney stadium project hotly debate the issue in the comments. Rath argues that firms that stood to benefit from construction projects joined forces with local landowners, contractors, boosters, and school officials to market the benefits of high-profile school structures to McKinney voters. “They sold it by overstating the need for the new stadium,” he says.

Along with the political and business forces pushing to build new facilities for which there may be questionable need, there’s also the “wow” factor. Like many fast-growth Sun Belt communities, the burgeoning municipalities north of Dallas span vast landscapes interlaced by highways, office parks, and new housing developments. With all of these towns scrambling for residents and businesses to move into their new neighborhoods and shopping centers, splashy sports facilities serve as branding tools.

McKinney City Manager Paul Grimes says that the new stadium will help him better market the town as it competes with Allen, Frisco, Plano and beyond. “While it is a significant investment,” he says via email, “the stadium will…help to attract visitors and families to our rapidly growing community.”

From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: Texas makes do with broken but legal school finance system

Texas' complex system for funding education might be at a breaking point.

- Click here for the article.

As the Texas Legislature searches for a solution to the state’s persistent school finance problems, the Houston Independent School District is asking voters to reconsider its property tax policy, and Austin ISD is warning voters that a big chunk of their school tax dollars aren't going where taxpayers might think they’re going.

It’s a confusing time in school finance — a maelstrom of local and state governments trying to master a byzantine system that is broken in every way but the most important one: It remains, according to the Texas Supreme Court, constitutionally sound.

Many lawmakers and school districts had expected — some in hope, others in dread — that this would be a legislative session focused on building a new school finance system for Texas. They thought the court would force lawmakers to set things right.

Maybe the session will turn out that way without the court’s help. The Senate Finance Committee has dispatched a team led by Sen. Larry Taylor, R-Friendswood, to try to rewrite the whole thing during the current legislative session.

Will it work? That’s a decent acid test to find out whether you are essentially optimistic or pessimistic. Whatever your disposition, a bona fide remedy designed by a committee with a short timeframe and no legal axe over its head would be unprecedented.

Until that or another effort changes the system, districts around Texas are wrestling with the current school finance system — a complicated and ramshackle machine that is supposed to get enough money to every school district in the state to adequately educate Texas children.

From the Texas Taxpayers and Research Organization: An Introduction to School Finance in Texas

This is a great look at school finance. Lengthy though.

We will look through this later this semester in 2306.

- Click here for the document.

- Here is a link to the website of the TTARA.

From the Texas Tribune: Abbott, Patrick disagree on special session for school funding

School funding promises to be a dominant issue during the next regular session. A special session would take some pressure off.

- Click here for the article. 

Days after Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick suggested that Gov. Greg Abbott call a 30-day special session to overhaul the state's school funding system, Abbott said Monday that no such special session was needed.

Patrick told the Midland Reporter-Telegram last week that there is not enough time during next year's 140-day regular session to discuss overhauling the controversial “Robin Hood” school funding system, which redistributes money from property-rich school districts to property-poor districts. Patrick has since said that he was "not advocating for a special session."

“If the governor is willing, I am willing to address it in a special session,” Patrick told the newspaper.

But Abbott made clear Monday that he is not willing. His office issued a statement saying the matter should be thoroughly discussed in regular session -- not a separate special session.

“Governor Abbott believes Texans deserve for issues—including fixing a broken Robin Hood system—to be thoroughly debated and addressed in a regular session where responsible and hardworking legislators have plenty of time to address these serious topics. Texans don’t want a full-time legislature, they want a legislature that can get their work done and then go home,” spokesman John Wittman wrote in a statement.

"No reason to put off to tomorrow what we can do today," Abbott added on Twitter.

Later Monday, Patrick's office issued a statement saying he was not pushing for a special session. A Patrick spokesman said the statement was similar to remarks the lieutenant governor made Monday afternoon while discussing school finance at an event in Houston.

"Reforming school finance is a very complex, multibillion-dollar issue that is a high priority for me and for many lawmakers," Patrick said in the statement. "I am not advocating for a special session. I am simply saying that at some point, if we are truly serious about dealing with this issue, I believe that is what it will take."

From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: Rising local school property taxes ease state budget woes

This is good news, I guess.

- Click here for the story.

It would not be completely accurate to say billions in local school tax money is being used for general state spending.

But it wouldn’t exactly be wrong, either.

Property-rich school districts in Texas hate sending money to the state to help property-poor school districts. But the state has little incentive to change that system: Every dollar the rich districts send in is a dollar the state itself doesn’t have to spend.

The money coming in from those property-rich districts is quite a pile, too. For lawmakers writing the 2018-19 budget, that “recapture” money will increase by an estimated $1.44 billion, freeing that much state money for other general spending.

The richer school districts (“richer” here refers to the value of their real estate and not to the incomes of the residents) are sending $3.69 billion to the state in the 2016-17 budget period. The state has to use that money on public education; it’s an effort to level out the differences in how much money is available to educate kids from different parts of the state.

That said, any money that comes in from the rich districts allows the state to spend the dollars it would have spent on education on other programs and services. The numbers are rising, too. The Texas Education Agency estimates it will “recapture” $5.13 billion during the next budget period, up from $3.69 billion in the current budget.

At the same time the agency’s official budget request to state lawmakers would require the state to spend 8.4 percent less from general revenue than the current budget a drop that’s partly attributable to the increase in recapture money available to the state.

Intentionally or not, it’s a great political deal for state lawmakers. They can squawk at local school districts for high property tax rates at the same time they’re using some of that money to lower the state’s expenses for public education.

The locally raised taxes recaptured from property-wealthy districts lower the amount of state-raised money — sales taxes and so on — that have to be spent on schools. Local taxpayers, in this case, are saving state taxpayers some money.

Intentionally or not, it’s a great political deal for state lawmakers. They can squawk at local school districts for high property tax rates at the same time they’re using some of that money to lower the state’s expenses for public education. The state budget is easier to balance because of the local tax money marbled into school spending.

From the Houston Chronicle: Robbing HISD - Voters should say 'no' to putting district under the Robin Hood recapture plan.

Voters who live in the boundaries of HISD have the chance to approve or disapprove subjecting itself to recapture - otherwise known as the Robin Hood plan.

The paper argues that voters should vote against the referendum.

- Click here for the article.

Voters will face a test on Election Day, and whether they answer correctly will determine the future of the Houston Independent School District. It should be a simple question, but it's written in the obtuse vernacular of lawmakers who really don't want voters to understand it.

The ballot provision will ask voters to authorize the board of trustees of HISD to purchase attendance credits from the state with local tax revenue. That sounds like a good, progressive measure, but be warned - it is a trick question.

The ballot is really asking whether HISD should submit itself to state recapture and send $162  million in local property tax dollars to Austin. The correct answer is "NO," or "AGAINST."

If this misleading ballot provision passes, HISD will not only be required to send $162 million in local property tax dollars to the state next year. The district will also likely face higher annual payments for the foreseeable future under the state's broken school finance system.

The mandate comes about because rising property values have made HISD subject to "Robin Hood" provisions under the Texas Education Code. All those skyscrapers and rapidly appreciating homes have apparently pushed HISD over the top.

As Texas schools are financed through property taxes, the recapture provisions (what we know as Robin Hood) were supposed to provide a way to equalize school funding across the state - for poor and wealthy schools alike.

In May, the Texas Supreme Court held that this system of school finance is marginally constitutional. Consider that assessment a D-minus grade. The fact of the matter is that the state's school funding formula fails to accomplish its intended goals of helping poor school districts.

Technically these recaptured funds are supposed to help schools that need the resources. If the provision worked like a true Robin Hood, it would "rob" from the rich and "give" to the poor. But in reality, the system robs from the poor and gives to legislators so that they don't have to raise state taxes. There's no guarantee that poor schools will receive a single extra dime if HISD pays up.

How does this work? Simply put, the state keeps two bank accounts: one for general revenue and one for the recaptured Robin Hood sums. Every dollar that the state pays from Robin Hood frees up general revenue money that the state otherwise would have to spend to help poor schools. So instead of giving extra money to needy districts, any HISD money will essentially be spent on highways, border security or some other appropriation besides education.

If this passes, then HISD is projected to send more than $1 billion of our local property taxes to the state over the next four years. Not only does that hurt HISD, but it looks an awful lot like a state property tax - which is prohibited in the Texas Constitution.

For the relevant statutes: TEA: Chapter 41: Wealth Equalization.

And there's this:

- Wikipedia: Robin Hood Plan.

From NBC - 2: ACLU reaches out to Collier school district over anthem protestor ban

Possible test case?

Do students have a right to protest?

- Click here for the article.

The Collier County School District is reacting to a principal's announcement that he would ban students from sporting events if they sit during the national anthem.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida has reached out to the school district after what they call a restriction of freedom of speech. In response, the district said it recognizes a student's First Amendment right to express thoughts and ideas as long as the student isn't being disruptive.

NBC2 first told you Wednesday about Lely High School's new policy, but the school district said Thursday it's a misunderstanding, saying Principal Ryan Nemeth's message was taken out of context and he regrets what he said.

Last Friday morning, Lely High students watched as their principal took to the morning announcements to speak about the national anthem.

"You will stand, you will stay quiet. If you don't, you're going to be sent home. No refund."

From the Texas Tribune: Paxton Opinion Slams Schools' Transgender Policies

Doing what he is constitutionally authorized to do.

A great example of conflict between the three levels of government.

- Click here for the article.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday issued an opinion saying the Fort Worth school superintendent who made headlines for formulating guidelines to accommodate transgender students exceeded his authority. Paxton also said that a portion of the guidelines instructing district employees not to out transgender students to their parents might violate state law.

Citing a part of the Texas education code, Paxton wrote that school district boards of trustees — not superintendents — are required to adopt policies while superintendents can only implement those policies “by developing administrative regulations.”
Attorney general opinions are not legally binding, and Paxton's interpretation has no direct legal impact on the Fort Worth district.

The Fort Worth ISD guidelines are in line with a directive from the Obama administration — issued after the guidelines were adopted — that instructed school districts across the country to ensure that transgender students are not discriminated against. Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick requested the opinion three weeks after calling for Fort Worth ISD Superintendent Kent Scribner’s resignation.

Everything you ever wanted to know about school finance in Texas

Well, very likely more than you ever wanted to know.

For 2306 - lot's more detail than what you get in the text:

- From the TEA: School Finance 101:Funding of Texas Public Schools.
- From the TTARA: An Introduction toSchool Financein Texas.
- From Texas Code: Texas Education Code.
- Texas Comptroller's Office: Texas School Funding at a Glance.

This and That about the SBOE

- Some Texas State Board of Education Members Don't Know What The Big Deal Is With Textbook Misprints.

Over the weekend, social media blew up over the misprint in a Texas social studies textbook that implies that African slaves were brought as "workers." To make matters worse, the wording in that particular section of the textbook fails to distinguish indentured workers from slaves.

McGraw-Hill Education said it “conducted a close review of the content and agree(s) that our language in that caption did not adequately convey that Africans were both forced into migration and to labor against their will as slaves.” The textbook publisher promised to change the caption's wording in their textbooks, which caused some Texas State Board of Education members to say that they didn't understand what all the hubbub was about.

- SBOE Members Question Teacher Prep Requirements.

Texas education officials took an initial step Thursday toward asking the state to reconsider raising the minimum college GPA needed for prospective educators to enter certification programs.

"A little nod ... saying 'we know you can do it, and we support you in this' would be a positive thing," said State Board of Education Chairwoman Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands, who added that the change would help restore "pride and value" to teaching.

Cargill made her remarks at a Thursday morning hearing of the SBOE's Committee on School Initiatives, which recommended in a 3-2 vote to reject rules recently passed by State Board of Educator Certification, which oversees the teaching profession in the state.

- Education Board Rejects Panel to Review Textbook Errors.

Weeks after a Houston-area mother sparked an uproar over a caption in her son’s textbook that inaccurately described African slaves as “workers,” the State Board of Education tentatively approved several changes to its textbook adoption process.

However, the 15-member elected board on Wednesday narrowly rejected a proposal that would’ve given it the option of creating an expert panel for the sole purpose of identifying errors in textbooks.

- SBOE: Trustees Can't Hire Just Anyone as Superintendent.

The State Board of Education on Wednesday rejected a rule change that would have allowed school boards to hire anyone they wanted as superintendent — even if the candidate had no public education experience — as long as they had some kind of post-baccalaureate degree and intended to pursue superintendent certification. 

But the 15-member elected board still appears poised to drop a current requirement that would-be school district chiefs have classroom teaching experience. That's something representatives from several teacher groups said Wednesday was crucial to effectively running a school district.

- Outspoken Candidates Could Revive Rancor on Education Board.

Save for some flare-ups in the past few years over what to put in social studies textbooks — and how to handle an error in one of them — the State Board of Education has seen more turbulent days.

The 15-member board in charge of crafting curriculum and textbooks for the state’s more than five million public schoolchildren spent years building a national reputation as the center of raucous quarrels over how — and whether — to teach young Texans about evolution, Islam and climate change.

Now, such charged exchanges are less common. Those who closely watch the board attribute the shift to the dispersion of a cadre of fervent right-wing conservatives, many of whom either retired or were voted out.

But the relative camaraderie could soon come to an end as two more moderate members step aside — and not just among the board’s Republican membership, where nearly all the notorious infighting has occurred.

From the Austin American Statesman: Grusendorf: School finance should value each student the same

A subject we've been covering in several 2306 sections. Texas' method of financing public school continues to be a - constitutional - mess.

- Click here for the article.

Any day now the Texas Supreme Court will likely rule on the pending school-finance case. Four issues are before the justices:

Efficiency: Is the system productive of results with little waste?
Equity: Is money equitably allocated?
Adequacy: Do schools have enough money?
State property tax: Is the state in violation of the prohibition against a state property tax. Texas taxpayers, legislators, and school officials anxiously await this pending decision.

The efficiency issue is before the court for the first time and was plead by the Texas Association of Business and five families. The other three issues have been litigated multiple times in the past and have consistently been brought to the courts by public schools and their various associations. Historically the focus of school-finance litigation has been money and how that money is allocated. However, the court has continued to indicate that money is only one issue and that the school-finance system needs systemic change.

For more than three decades, the Texas Legislature has been wrestling with the thorny issue of school finance and school finance litigation. Time and again the legislature has tweaked the system only to find the state back at the courthouse defending the latest legislative action. Although the Texas Supreme Court has consistently called for “structural” change, the legislative solution has always been more patches to the existing structure.

Clearly, a different approach is required if the seemingly endless cycle of litigation is to ever end. On the first day of the trial in 2012 the lead attorney for the school districts indicated that litigation was just part of the school finance system. That should not be the case.

The way education is funded today consists of a hodgepodge of highly complex outdated formulas that would make a nuclear physicist’s head spin, formulas which the trial court found have little relation to what is required to educate a child. The current formula system has evolved over time based primarily on political considerations. In other words, politicians tweak the school funding formulas to deliver additional funding to whichever school districts politicians wish to favor in order to harvest sufficient votes for passage of their preferred legislation. School finance has become a way to earmark funds for political purposes.

From the Fort Stockton Pioneer: STAAR student test was decades in the making

Where did that high stakes test come from anyway?

- Click here for the article.

Developed to measure student success in college and in future careers, STAAR raised stakes to a level that alarmed many, including middle-class parents who saw the tests as a threat to their college-bound children. The program initially required all high school students to pass 15 STAAR end-of-course exams to graduate. The requirement, long in the works, resulted from an executive order and initiative by then-Gov. Rick Perry in 2004 and 2005 and a law that passed in 2007.

Since 2013, grass roots efforts of parents and teachers resulted in lawmakers reining in requirements that fifth- and eighth-graders and high school students had to pass the STAAR to move on to the next grade or to graduate. Now, students in those grades who fail can appeal to a committee of their teachers, parents and administrators to move on.

State officials also made other concessions with the STAAR, which has seen the most changes compared to past assessments, including shortening the test and changing the testing vendor from Pearson Education for the first time in more than two decades.

Between 1995 and 2015, the state spent an estimated $268 million on testing. According to a 2012 study by the Brookings Institute, per-pupil spending on testing in Texas was $34, falling in the middle compared to other states.

Nationwide, a growing movement is pushing back against the status quo of standardized testing, according to the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, which advocates for testing reforms. Middle-class parents and Republicans are joining longtime critics — minority student advocates and Democrats — to urge a more developmentally appropriate test, said Bob Schaeffer with the center.

“The two major critiques are that the instruments themselves are narrow measures of what matters in education,” Schaeffer said. “The second interrelated facet is how test scores are used, and Texas was again in the vanguard of attaching high stakes – significant consequences for students and teachers and schools — to test scores.”

From Ballotpedia: Texas 1993 ballot measures

Texans reject very few amendments to the Texas Constitution, but in May 1993 they rejected three that would have addressed unequal funding in public schools. This loss led to the establishment of the Robin Hood Plan.

- Click here for some detail on the ballot measures.

For info on the Robin Hood Plan click here.

Edgewood v Kirby

Here are a few links relating to a seminal case where the Texas Supreme Court argued Texas' financing scheme for public schools violated the Texas Constitution. It followed on the heals of a less successful case - Rodriquez v. San Antonio ISD - where the US Supreme Court argued that education was not a fundamental right. It led to the Robin Hood plan, which required wealthier school districts to share resources with poorer districts.

- TSHA: Edgewood Independent School District et al. v. Kirby.
- TSHA: Rodríguez et al. v. San Antonio ISD.
- Wikipedia: Robin Hood Plan.
- HRO: Schools and Taxes: A Summary of Legislationof the 2006 Special Session.

From Quorum Report: Veteran school finance lawyer casts doubts on constitutionality of new school finance court

Texas has struggled to justify it cuts to K-12 funding back in the 82nd session. It has been argued to violate the Texas Constitution's mandate that education be adequately funded. Their scheme to determine this itself might be unconstitutional according to this story: 

- Click here for Quorum Report:

Buck Wood, who has had a hand in school finance and elections cases for decades, dismisses the idea and says the only legitimate way to create such a court would be through a constitutional amendment approved by voters

Veteran Austin lawyer Buck Wood is convinced the newly created three-judge panel for school finance cases is unconstitutional and would be struck down if the Texas Supreme Court remanded the school finance case back to the lower courts.

Texas lawmakers passed Senate 455 last session, intended to create a three-judge panel to hear school finance cases. Sponsor Rep. Mike Schofield, R-Katy, said the bill was modeled on the federal three-judge panel in redistricting cases: Balancing a Travis County judge with jurists from around the state is more fair and balanced than limiting the findings of fact to a single Austin-centric court, he argued.

Wood, who has had a hand in school finance and elections cases for decades, dismisses the idea that such a strategy is done for anything other than partisan reasons. Lawmakers can create a court – and the state constitution blesses the creation of certain courts – but not a newly constituted court with a three-judge panel, especially one that includes an appellate judge.

Who is Buck Wood - apart from the guy who has one of the most Texas names ever?

- Profile: Randall Buck Wood.
- Texas Monthly: The Devil and Bob Bullock.
- C-Span video with Wood and a few others.

Controversy kicks up over how slavery is covered in Texas social studies textbooks.

More battles rage over the content of K-12 social studies textbook. This time its over how slaves are referred to in a caption.

Here's a blow by blow so far.

1 - It begins with the adoption of textbooks - approved by the Texas State Board of Education - in late 2014.
- Texas Approves New Social Studies Texts — With Changes.
- Texas Board of Education Fights Over History.
- Texas Takes Last Pass at Social Studies Textbooks.

2 - It began when a parent posted a photograph on her Facebook profile showing a caption in the textbook referring to the Africans brought to the US during the slave trade as "workers."
- Click here for it.
- Click here for a video she posted as well.
- Controversial Social Studies Textbooks Under Fire Again.

3 - Some members of the board are reportedly calling this an isolated incident.
- Education Board Members Dismiss Textbook Kerfuffle.

Textbook wars continue in Texas

For this week's written assignment for GOVT 2306.

A few items related to the controversy over what the State Board of Education wants students in Texas' K-12 public schools to learn about hostory and government.

- Houston Chronicle: New Texas textbooks downplay slavery in the Civil War.
- The Atlantic: Was Moses a Founding Father?
- Washington Post: Texas officials: Schools should teach that slavery was ‘side issue’ to Civil War.
- Washington Post: Texas board approves social studies standards that perceived liberal bias.
- Los Angeles Times: Do new Texas textbooks whitewash slavery and segregation?
- The Texas Tribune: Rod Paige Address State Board of Education.

From the Washington Post: Arizona will require high school students to pass citizenship test to graduate. Can you pass?

They want their high school students to know as much as newly naturalized citizens.

- Click here for the article.

Arizona high school students will have to pass the same test that immigrants must take to obtain citizenship before they graduate under a new law signed Thursday by Gov. Doug Ducey (R).

The first-of-its-kind law will require students to take the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization civics test, a set of 100 basic questions on U.S. government and history. Students will have to get 60 of the 100 questions correct in order to graduate.

The measure passed the state House and Senate in a single day. It’s one of the first measures Ducey, inaugurated earlier this week, signed into law.

Arizona is just the first state to require citizenship tests for high school students. The Civics Education Initiative is pursuing similar legislation in dozens of states, with the goal of mandating the test in all 50 states by Sept. 17, 2017 — the 230th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution. In Arizona, CEI’s effort was spearheaded by former senators Dennis DeConcini (D) and Jon Kyl (R).

In total, 18 states are likely to consider civics test requirements this year. North Dakota legislators this week advanced their own version through a state House committee.

We'll take some of this in class.

School funding trial back on track

In the opening lectures this semester we mentioned that the Texas Constitution contains language related to the need for the legislature to adequately fund public education in the state and that a lawsuit followed the $5 billion in cuts made to the education budget following the 82nd session of the legislature.

Click here for a few stories related to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was put on hold once the 83rd session of the legislature restored $3.9 billion, but the lawsuit is back on track.

From the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal:

The second school funding trial began Tuesday with this basic argument from the attorneys representing the more than 600 school districts in the state suing the Texas Legislature: Despite the $3.9 billion the lawmakers restored to public education funding in last year’s session, the same old problems continue because of inequitable funding.

“Nothing has changed,” argued David Hinojosa, lead school finance attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, or MALDEF. The San Antonio-based organization represents some of the property-tax poorest districts in the state and a group of parents, including two from Amarillo.

The system is also inefficient because it is not producing results, Hinojosa and other attorneys told State District Judge John Dietz.

But Texas Assistant Attorney General Shelly Dahlberg countered that the funding of the public education system is constitutional.

In last year’s session, when the Legislature restored most of the funding cuts made in the 2011 session when the lawmakers tackled a $27 billion shortfall, the state narrowed the funding gap in the overwhelming majority of all school districts, Dahlberg told Dietz.

“The Legislature also improved the equity of the system,” she said in reference to one of the key arguments the plaintiffs used when they sued the state two years ago.

From the Texas Tribune:

With the Texas school finance trial reopening Tuesday, state district court Judge John Dietz is set to consider how changes made during the 2013 legislative session could affect his February ruling that the state has underfunded its public schools.

Attorneys for the state will spend the next four weeks arguing that new high school graduation requirements and the $3.4 billion lawmakers added back to the public education budget in 2013 should change his mind. But the most prominent player in the state’s defense of the lawsuit could remain outside the courtroom, where the trial has become a political football in the state’s heated 2014 gubernatorial contest.

The leading Republican candidate for governor, Greg Abbott, is also the state’s attorney general. His office is responsible for the state’s defense against the more than two-thirds of Texas school districts that are suing over what they say is an inadequate and unfair funding system in a case that is expected to travel to the state Supreme Court.

He said last week that he does not plan to appear in court during the latest hearings. That has not stopped his expected Democratic opponent, Wendy Davis, from lobbing attacks based on his role in the litigation. Davis, a Fort Worth state senator, has her own connection to the school finance lawsuit. In 2011, she filibustered the 2011 budget bill that enacted the $5.4 billion in cuts that led to the litigation that arose two summers ago.

Tribpedia contains full background of the case.

The last post on civic education - at least for a little while

Two quick links.

This takes you to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Civic Education. It provides - as you would assume - a scholarly look at the subject.

And this takes you so a recent article in the Atlantic detailing the gradual decrease in the amount of time spent in the classroom on government and civics. The author does not think its a good thing and wonders if No Child Left Behind has contributed to a decline in civic education.

Why has a traditionally “core subject”, which was ranked in the same academic hierarchy as English, science, and math for decades, been sidelined in thousands of American classrooms?

The shift in curriculum began in the early years of the Cold War. While U.S. military and technological innovation brought World War II to a close, it was a later use of technology--the Soviet launching of Sputnik in 1957--that historian Thomas A. Bailey called the equivalent of a “psychological Pearl Harbor” for many Americans. It created deep feelings of inadequacy and a belief that the U.S. was falling behind in developing new technology and weapons, which led to the passage of the 1958 National Defense Education Act. This legislation pumped $1 billion over four years into math and science programs in both K-12 schools and universities.

Despite this extra focus on math and science, social studies managed to make it through the end of the Cold War relatively unscathed (in fact, the number of classroom hours dedicated to teaching social studies in grades 1-4 peaked in the 1993-1994 school year at 3 hours a week). But drastic change came a decade later with the passage of President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind legislation.

No Child Left Behind was signed into law in an attempt to address the growing achievement gap between affluent and low-income students. It was a controversial piece of legislation from the start, mainly because of its “one size fits all’” approach: It uses annual standardized tests to determine how well students are performing in reading and math and then uses those scores to determine the amounts of federal funding schools receive.

Besides the obvious criticism that low-performing schools--arguably the ones that need the most increase in funding--are disproportionally punished for their low scores, critics also believe that No Child Left Behind has narrowed the curriculum. Since the standardized tests focus exclusively on English and math, and those scores determine the bulk of a school’s federal funding, schools have been forced to increase time and resources in these subjects at the expense of all others, including social studies.

This had led to a civic achievement gap. Poor students know less about government than wealthier ones and are less able to represent their interests effectively