Lawmakers went home several weeks ago after failing to work out a solution to school finance, and chances are they'll be back in a few weeks or months for another crack at it. But they're still dueling, via mail and email. Several days ago, Bob Griggs, R-North Richland Hills, sent a letter explaining his decision to retire and imploring other educators (he's a former school superintendent) to consider running for office and to represent public education in Austin. Grigg's letter drew a response from Rep. Bill Keffer of Dallas, a fellow Republican who was on the other side of the education reform fight. He sent this email from his Capitol office to constituents earlier this afternoon.
From: Bill Keffer <Bill.Keffer@house.state.tx.us>
To: Bill Keffer <Bill.Keffer@house.state.tx.us>
Sent: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:00:25 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Representative Bob Griggs and the "Established Educators"
Dear Friend of District 107:
With the Texas Supreme Court poised to issue yet one more long-awaited ruling on school finance, and after three failed attempts by the state legislature just this year to successfully address the issue without the need for court intervention, the castigation and criticism are flying in all directions. Frustration will do that; frustration can also cloud judgment.
The latest chapter in this year's "school-finance" saga is the announcement by Representative Bob Griggs (R - North Richland Hills) that he will not be seeking re-election to a third term. Griggs is a former school superintendent and was one of my classmates in a sizable group of freshman Republicans elected to the Texas House in 2002. In addition to his announcement to "step down", Griggs also issued a call to members of his education community to "step up" to the plate and take his place in the school-reform debate in Austin.
In his "call to arms", Griggs wrote that he and ".a handful of other elected officials with education experience have witnessed and battled a misguided and widely held belief in the Legislature that established educators are the problem with education and that the system can not be fixed without wiping the slate clean and starting over from scratch."
As much as I like Bob Griggs personally, I feel compelled to respond to his characterization of what he has been "witnessing" and "battling" in Austin. It is nothing less than the fundamental reform of public education. That such comprehensive reform is essential to the survival of the reality of an educated citizenry should not be subject to debate; and yet, apparently, it is.
As a member of the House Public Education Committee, I and others had the task of listening to hundreds of hours of testimony from parents, students, teachers, school-board members, superintendents, academics, and lobbyists for the various state education organizations and unions. Without exception, every member of the "established educators" fraternity who testified made his position perfectly clear: "Send more money (usually the amount specified was $8 billion), but don't tell us how to spend it, and don't change anything we're doing" - in other words, status quo plus more money.
The position that I and the other Republican members of the committee tried to make just as clear in response was: "Reform before revenue; the one approach we cannot and will not abide is sending more money without first drastically reforming the way we do public education in Texas."
And, so, the House passed HB 2 not once, but two different times. It was unquestionably a historic overhaul of our public-education system. It introduced substantial financial incentives for teachers who deliver results. It opened up the complicated school-accounting system and simplified the arcane funding formulas, so that it would be easier to follow the path of a school dollar from initial funding to ultimate expenditure, even down to the individual campus level. It provided a more accurate measure of student academic progress through end-of-course exams. It required that at least 65% of a school district's budget be spent in the classroom. It increased the state's ability to intervene and take over a failing district or campus. It dramatically reduced the effects of the current system of legalized theft known as "Robin Hood", so that no district would ever have to send more than 35% of its property-tax dollars to Austin. It moved school-board elections to November, in an effort to involve more voters in the process. It moved the school start date to after Labor Day. And it provided $4.2 billion in new money for public schools - more than any such appropriation in Texas history.
But, we in the House failed to persuade enough of our colleagues in the Senate, and HB 2 died - twice. The "established educators" and Bob Griggs also adamantly and vociferously opposed HB 2. Although we were proposing an unprecedented amount of new money for public education, we were first and foremost proposing fundamental, systemic reform; and that is what Bob Griggs has been "battling". Change is difficult; significant change even more so. But even a cursory observation of the current and future global economic environment underscores the need for significant change. The "more money" mantra in and of itself is not the solution. Between 1997 and 2004, school-operating expenses increased 57%, while student enrollment increased only 13%. The number of teachers increased 17%, but campus administrators increased 32% and central office administrators increased 35%. Administrative costs have nearly tripled. Less than 50% of each tax dollar collected for education actually makes it to the classroom. Over 50% of graduating high-school seniors must have remedial math and English when entering college.
Our hope is in fundamental reform; but the hope of Bob Griggs and his echelon of "established educators" is in money alone. The difference between the two positions is profound, and the path chosen will determine whether we have found the on-ramp to the highway to educational excellence, or simply stayed on the frontage road to nowhere.
Sincerely,
Bill
