THE TEXAS COLLEGE READINESS PROCESS

Donna Garner
Education Policy Commentator EdNews.org

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

First, let me say that I have been confused about the convoluted process through which Texas is developing "college readiness" standards; and I believe other people may also be confused. So many different groups, councils, commissions, acronyms, legislative bills, reviewers, teams, etc. have been involved that I am afraid the whole process has begun to run together in people's minds.Therefore, I have attempted to lay out some pieces of information which should be helpful to all of us.

Next point, all of us need to remember that Gov. Perry just appointed Robert Scott as the official Texas Commissioner of Education on October 15, 2007. That means Scott has only been in his job as Commissioner for a little over a month.The development of HB 1 and the initial implementation of HB 1 were undertaken by Ex-Commissioner Shirley Neeley.Robert Scott walked into this "play" during the second act, and we must not hold him responsible for decisions made by Neeley.

THE COMMISSION ON COLLEGE READY TEXAS

The Commission on College Ready Texas (CCRT) was funded by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Gates grant may have required that the Texas Education Agency provide a portion of funding toward administering the grant.

Because of Sandy Kress's lucrative lobbying activities, some people have wondered if he got paid any salary as Chair of the CCRT.The answer is that he did not receive any salary from CCRT for his work.

The CCRT was formed by Governor Perry in April 2007 and concluded in October 2007.Today the CCRT no longer exists.The CCRT was created to serve as a resource for the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) and to get all stakeholders to focus together on the college-readiness standards which need to be taught and mastered by Texas' public school students. The Legislature gave the CCRT no authority to make nor implement any rules or laws.

So that you can gain more clarity about the CCRT, here is the April 03, 2007, press release from Gov. Perry's office regarding the appointments to the CCRT:

http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/pressreleases/PressRelease.2007-04-03.2746

Apr. 03, 2007

Gov. Perry Appoints 21 Members to the Commission for College Ready Texas

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today appointed 21 members to the Commission for a College Ready Texas. The commission will provide leadership and guidance to the State Board of Education to improve college readiness programs by aligning high school curriculum with college standards.

"Education has always been, and will always be, the cornerstone to success," Gov. Perry said. "Every student deserves to receive the necessary groundwork to be academically equipped for college. With the guidance of the Commission for a College Ready Texas, students will have access to improved college preparation tools."

The commission will hold public meetings from April through fall 2007. The commission will consider the public testimony from these meetings to make recommendations to the State Board of Education, which has the authority to adopt, align and define college-readiness standards for Texas.

Sandy Kress of Austin will serve as chair of the commission. Kress is a partner in the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., where he focuses on public law and policy at the state and national levels. He served as senior advisor to President George W. Bush on education and as president of the board of trustees of the Dallas Public Schools. Kress currently serves on the Education Commission of the States. He previously served as counsel to the Governor's Business Council and Texans for Education, and as a member of the Texas Business and Education Coalition. Kress received his bachelor's degree from the University of California at Berkeley, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, and earned his law degree with honors from the University of Texas School of Law.

Additionally, the following business, education and community service leaders were appointed to the commission:

Albert Black, President, On-Target Supplies and Logistics of Dallas
Barbara Cargill, Member, State Board of Education
Jose Cuevas Jr., Founder and CEO, JumBurrito
Dr. Robert Duron, Superintendent, San AntonioIndependentSchool District
Linda Evans, President of Grants and Planning, The Meadows Foundation of Dallas
Bruce Esterline, Vice President of Grants and Planning, The Meadows Foundation of Dallas
Larry Faulkner, President, The Houston Endowment; and former President, The University of Texas at Austin
David Garcia, CEO, CEDRA Corporation of Austin
Bill Hammond, President and CEO, Texas Association of Business
Dr. Eric Hanushek, Paul and Jan Hanna Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution of StanfordUniversity
Woody L. Hunt, former Chairman of the Board of Regents, The University of Texas System
Jodie Jiles, Managing Director, RBC Capital Markets of Houston
Charles E. McMahen, Chairman, Governor's Business Council
George McShan, former President and President-elect, Texas Association of School Boards
Sonya Medina, Executive Director, AT&T Foundation
Elaine Mendoza, Member, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
David Merrill, Vice President-Investments, AG Edwards & Sons, Inc.
Dean Nafziger, Ph.D., CEO , Edvance Research, Inc.
Dr. Richard M. Rhodes, President, El PasoCommunity College
Dr. Ricardo Romo, President, The University of Texas at San Antonio
Zeynep Young, Michael and Susan Dell Foundation

Also included as members of the commission are eight co-chairs who oversee the four subject-specific [vertical] teams: [The vertical team members were a part of the CCRT.]

Dr. Linda Ferreira-Buckley, Chair, Department of Rhetoric and Composition English, The University of Texas at Austin
Selina Jackson, English Teacher, WallIndependentSchool District
Linda Gann, Mathematics Instructional Specialist, NorthsideIndependentSchool District
Dr. Selina Vasquez-Mireles, Associate Professor of Mathematics, TexasStateUniversity
Mercedes Guzman, Science Teacher, El PasoIndependentSchool District
Dr. C. O. Patterson, Professor of Biology, TexasA&MUniversity, College Station
Larry Garibaldi, Instructional Team Leader, HoustonIndependentSchool District
Dr. Jonathan Lee, Associate Professor of History, San AntonioCollege

De-facto members of the commission include:

Commissioner Shirley Neeley, Texas Education Agency
Commissioner Raymund Parades, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Susan Combs, TexasState Comptroller
John Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, TexasHigh School Project – Communities Foundation of Texas

VERTICAL TEAMS

HB 1 (79^th Legislature, Third Session, 2006) gives great authority to Dr. Raymond Paredes, the Commissioner of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), and to the former Commissioner of Education, Shirley Neeley.The members of the elected Texas State Board of Education are hardly even mentioned.

Because of the way HB 1 is worded, Paredes and Neeley have appointed the members of the Vertical Teams (VT) and have set their duties. The VT members are given the authority to recommend college-readiness standards (CRS) to which the K-12 teachers are to align their curriculum. The VT members are to develop or establish minimum standards for English / Language Arts/ Reading (ELAR) curricula first, followed by mathematics, science, and social studies respectively.The VT teams are to complete the development of or establish minimum standards for ELAR curricula and materials for approval by the State Board of Education not later than June 1, 2009; and the ELAR curricula and online materials must be available for high-school students beginning with the fall of 2009. The SBOE is mandated to incorporate the work of the Vertical Team members which has been approved by the two Commissioners.

If the Vertical Teams are made up of quality classroom teachers who are experienced at working with real students in real classrooms, the documents produced by the VT members could be very helpful to close the chasm which exists between Grade 12 and Grade 13.However, if the VT members have a political agenda and/or are strong supporters of the wrong philosophy of education, they could do real damage to K-12 because of the authority vested in them under HB 1.

The Vertical Teams' drafts for ELAR, mathematics, science, and social studies were released at the CCRT meeting on Nov. 8, 2007; and thus far, the public response has been anything but positive.

WHAT IS THE P-16 COUNCIL?

The P-16 Council mentioned in HB 1 (79^th Legislature, 3^rd Session) is NOT another name for the Commission on College Ready Texas (CCRT).The P-16 Council was in place long before HB 1 was passed.

I really hope I am wrong; but the more I learn about the P-16 Council, the more I believe that certain entities are trying to use this Council (along with the Vertical Teams) to seize control ofK-12 from the elected Texas State Board of Education members.

Please follow me while I lead us through the background information on the P-16 Council:

The P-16 Collaborative began in 1998 as an informal network called the Public Education/Higher Education Coordinating Group.

The P-16 Council is an entity managed by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) and the Texas Education Agency (TEA).The P-16 Council was created by the Texas Legislature and is state-funded.

The P-16 Council and the Vertical Teams as authorized by HB1 have been given broad authority to manage the college-readiness process.

HB 1 set up a very complicated set of mandates which basically directs the P-16 Council and the Vertical Teams to develop college readiness. Because SBOE members and various persons including myself aroused public pressure during the 79^th Legislative Session (2006) over the wording in HB 1, the Legislature agreed at the very last minute to throw in the "notwithstanding" clause (i.e., (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the State Board of Education retains the board's authority over the required curriculum adopted under Section 28.002).It is this clause which has held back the P-16 Council and Vertical Teams from completely taking away the authority of the elected SBOE members over the K-12 curriculum requirements.

THE TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD

Dr. David T. Conley (the Director of the Center for Educational Policy Research at the University of Oregon) was hired by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) whose Commissioner is Dr. Raymond Paredes. Conley has directed the work of the Vertical Teams.

Dr. David Chard (who had been the associate dean in the College of Education at the University of Oregon until he was named the dean of the SMU School of Education and Human Development on May 31, 2007) has been working with the ELAR Vertical Team.Their VT draft has been heavily criticized by the public. Consequently, Dr. Chard took the VT draft and produced an alternative ELAR draft which has also elicited negative responses from the public.

When I listened to the audio stream of the SBOE meeting (11.14.07),I understood Dr. Paredes to say that the reason the Dr. Chard alternative draft could not be posted on the THECB's public comment web site (http://epiconline.org:80/texas/CRSpubliccomment.php) is that Legislation calls for only the work of the Vertical Teams to be posted for public comment.Dr. Paredes said he could not authorize the posting of the Dr. Chard alternative draft for public comment because the Vertical Teams had not officially reviewed it.

It was announced at that same 11.14.07 SBOE meeting that Dr. Paredes and Dr. Conley have decided to draw Texas into collaborating with McREL (Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning) which is located in Denver, Colorado.

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT McREL?

Here is a link to the McREL web site: http://www.mcrel.org/

Marc Tucker had early roots at the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (Portland, Oregon) which was closely connected to McREL (Denver, Colorado).Dr. Shirley McCune was the Senior Director at McREL until 1994. Both NREL and McREL worked in conjunction with each other to implement School-to-Work initiatives (STW) across the country; the purpose of STW is to completely reshape our schools and, hence, our society.Those who support STW believe that only the top 10% of students should be placed on the college-bound track and that the other 90% should become "worker bees" by choosing specialized career pathways on or before eighth grade.

On February 4, 1998, the Heritage Foundation conducted a discussion panel in which Lynne Cheney, Jennifer Marshall, and Chris Patterson presented "School-to-Work: Is the Government Micro-Managing the Lives of Our Children?"Here are excerpts from this report (http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Ed/STW03Collisn.htm):

This report describes the introduction of School-to-Work programs throughout the nation, and identifies the emerging problems of implementation. The report describes the introduction of School-to-Work nationally within the context of Texas. Throughout the nation, School-to-Work:

·Introduces a federally-designed framework for curricula and instructional practices;

·Installs the failed methodologies of progressive (outcome-based) education;

·Changes the purpose of education from academic learning to preparing students for work and placing students in jobs;

·Limits education choice, forces children to make occupational decisions in middle school and directs these choices according to predicted local workforce needs; and

·Links schools with jobs and government, establishing government as the gatekeeper of education and employment.

DR. SHIRLEY McCUNE AND McREL

Here are some excerpts about Dr. Shirley McCune at McREL:

http://www.newhorizons.org/future/Creating_the_Future/crfut_mccune.html

Dr. McCune was formerly senior director with the Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory and director of the McREL Center for Educational Equity in Colorado. She was also the president of Learning Trends, a Denver-based research and development firm working to monitor societal and educational trends and identify their implications for educational policies, practices, and programs."

"As a catalyst in that process, Dr. McCune has authored or co-authored numerous research reports, articles, and monographs. She is a change agent whose work in training, consulting, and planning conferences has resulted in action on the part of educators, state leaders and legislators, business organizations, and federal agencies. She is currently working with the College of Education at Arizona State University providing technical assistance to the ArizonaSchool to Work system.

HERITAGE FOUNDATION REPORT

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Ed/STW03Collisn.htm

HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Discussion Panel 2/4/98
Washington, D.C.

School-to-Work: Is Government Micro-managing the Lives of Our Children?

Featured Panelists

THE HONORABLE LYNNE CHENEY
Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

JENNIFER A. MARSHALL
Education Policy Analyst, Family Research Council

CHRIS PATTERSON
Director of Education Policy, Texas Public Policy Foundation

Conservatives and liberals alike are concerned about how ill prepared today's youth are for entering the job market after graduating from high school. In 1994 the Clinton Administration proposed and Congress supported the School to Work Act to address this problem. The School to Work program, however, steers very little money towards true reform. Instead of solving this dilemma by focusing on strengthening the core curriculum, raising standards, and improving discipline, the program directs precious resources towards local partnerships, and interagency collaboration.

In particular, the program integrates vocational awareness into academic subjects for kindergarten through 12th grade and requires students to participate in vocational training during their education. Students are forced to choose a career pathway by 8th grade.

Is this program big government's latest move to micromanage our children? Will federal education dollars enable Washington to determine the future of our children?

MARC TUCKER AND SHIRLEY MC CUNE

http://curewashington.org/Education_Philosophy.pdf

Education: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

By Marda Kirkwood, 5/17/04, revised 1/3/05 and 6/16/07

[Excerpts from this article]

The answer to the 'who' question comprises our Hall of Shame:

Marc Tucker – The chief architect of the system at the federal level, he wrote a nine-page letter to Hillary Clinton just after the 1992 election, outlining his plan. It later became a document called "A Workforce Development Plan for the United States." The infamous "Dear Hillary letter" is posted at http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/marc_tucker/marc_tucker_letter.html.

Tucker worked with both Mrs. Clinton and Ira Magaziner in formulating the plan. He has his fingers in a half dozen organizations that push the agenda forward in the various states. More is available about these groups in a report by Diana Fessler of Ohio at http://www.curewashington.org/fessler.htm.

Shirley McCune – This former director of the Mid-Continent Research and Education Laboratory (MCREL)¹⁶ is currently serving as Bergeson's second-in-command. Her job is Education Liaison to the federal government. She is most famous for her quote, "What is happening to America today… what it amounts to is a total transformation of our society." uttered at a governor's conference in Kansas while still at MCREL. What she means by "total transformation of society" becomes clear when you see two more quotes from her book, The Light Shall Set You Free:.

For many, it is difficult to grasp the concept that we are more than our human form and that we are also beings of Light. Consequently, training the mind to accept expanded concepts of who and what we truly are can be an arduous task, requiring time, patience, and a desire to explore areas not commonly taught in the classrooms of today. When one acquires the ability to connect with the Light within, everything observed and experienced through the five senses in the outer world takes on a new meaning, which releases the child within to want to relearn that which we already know. This path requires a whole new curriculum and set of guidelines to describe our existence.

The higher vibrations of the Fourth Dimension provide us with experiences (a new curriculum, if you will) that require us to choose life-styles and behaviors that may be considerably different from those which we exhibited in the past.

Footnotes at the bottom of the article:

¹⁶ The research laboratories, such as MCREL, are quasi-governmental agencies. They get most of their funding from the US Dept. of Education, but are supposed to be independent.

¹⁷ Consultants to GCERF included McCune (prior to her working at OSPI) and David Hornbeck, a Tucker flunky.

REPORT TO NASBE BY MARZANO AND KENDALL, McREL

On September 26, 1997, Robert Marzano and John Kendall of the Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) presented before the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) an Issue Brief on the move toward standards-based education. This link (http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/Standards/5962IR_FallAndRise.pdf) will take you to a paper which explains the McREL database and how it is organized.

MY CONCERNS WITH THE McREL DATABASE

My concern with this elaborate and very complicated McREL database is that it will lead to confusion in our Texas classrooms and to an emphasis on more performance-based assessments.KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) is a saying which has real validity when it comes to the thousands of teachers, schools, and classrooms in Texas. With the ever-growing pressures put upon teachers in classrooms, a complicated set of rewritten TEKS standards will not bring about real education reform.What will insure education reform is to produce a simple standards document which tells teachers what to teach (not how) on the left side of the page and tells on the right side of the page what it is that the students are to learn.This organizational structure is a much better way to make sure that everyone in the classroom knows what goals are to be reached rather than to produce a complicated set of standards which requires hundreds of pages of supplementary instructions and/or numerous Internet links.

THE HISTORY OF THE P-16 COUNCIL

http://www.tea.state.tx.us:80/p16/p16council.html

In Texas, the P-16 collaborative began in 1998 as an informal network called the Public Education/Higher Education Coordinating Group. That group was formed by the Commissioners of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), along with the executive director of the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC). Representatives from the legislature, the Governor's office, university systems and other state agencies, as well as education associations and business coalitions were invited to the meetings. It was important for the stakeholders and strategic partners to have a structure, however informal, to present ideas and discuss issues of mutual concern and interest such as the Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate (AP/IB) Incentive Program, college readiness projects, role of community colleges, teacher recruitment and retention, dual/concurrent enrollment, minority enrollment and assessment.

SB 286 AND THE P-16 COUNCIL

In June 2003, the Texas Legislature 
(78^th Legislative Session -- Regular) passed SB No. 286

(http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/78R/billtext/html/SB00286F.HTM)

HB 2808 AND THE P-16 COUNCIL

In 2005, the 79^th Legislature (Regular Session) modified and strengthened the P-16 statute bypassing House Bill 2808, which amends Section 61.076 and
repeals Section 61.077 of the Education
Code. Section 61.076 outlines Council membership

(http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/79R/billtext/html/HB02808E.HTM)

THE P-16 COUNCIL MEMBERS

In 2005, the 79th Regular Texas Legislature established the statutory members of the P-16 Council in House Bill 2808. Council members represent four Texas state agencies: the Texas Education Agency (TEA), the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC), and the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services (DARS). Note: The State Board of Educator Certification (SBEC) remains a statutory member; however, subsequent legislation moved SBEC's responsibilities under the purview of TEA.

Members

Robert Scott (Council Co-Chair)
Commissioner of Education
Texas Education Agency

Dr. Raymund Paredes (Council Co-Chair)
Commissioner of Higher Education
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

Larry Temple
Executive Director, TWC
Texas Workforce Commission

Terrell I. Murphy
DARS Commissioner
Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services

HB 1 AND THE P-16 COUNCIL/VERTICAL TEAMS

Then came the passage of HB 1 (79th Legislature, 3rd Session) whose regulations took effect with the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year.Along with certain sections from HB 1, I have also affixed the Fiscal Note which applies to the pertinent section(s).

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/793/billtext/html/HB00001F.HTM

[Excerpts taken from HB 1]

By:Chisum, Eissler, Branch,H.B. No. 1
Howard of Fort Bend, Hartnett, et al.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to public school finance, property tax relief, 
and related matters; making an appropriation.

Section 28.008

ARTICLE 5. HIGH SCHOOL SUCCESS AND COLLEGE READINESS
SECTION 5.01. Subchapter A, Chapter 28, Education Code, is
amended by adding Sections 28.008 and 28.009 to read as follows:
Sec. 28.008. ADVANCEMENT OF COLLEGE READINESS IN
CURRICULUM. (a) To ensure that students are able to perform
college-level course work at institutions of higher education, the
commissioner of education and the commissioner of higher education
shall establish vertical teams composed of public school educators
and institution of higher education faculty.(b) The vertical teams shall:
(1) recommend for approval by the commissioner of
education and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board college
readiness standards and expectations that address what students
must know and be able to do to succeed in entry-level courses
offered at institutions of higher education;
(2) evaluate whether the high school curriculum
requirements under Section 28.002 and other instructional
requirements serve to prepare students to successfully perform
college-level course work;
(3) recommend how the public school curriculum
requirements can be aligned with college readiness standards and
expectations;
(4) develop instructional strategies for teaching
courses to prepare students to successfully perform college-level
course work; and
(5) develop or establish minimum standards for
curricula, professional development materials, and online support
materials in English language arts, mathematics, science, and
social studies, designed for students who need additional
assistance in preparing to successfully perform college-level
course work.
(c) The commissioner of education and the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board by rule shall establish the
composition and duties of the vertical teams established under this
section.
(d) The State Board of Education shall incorporate college
readiness standards and expectations approved by the commissioner of education and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board under Subsection (b) into the essential knowledge and skills identified by the board under Section 28.002(c).
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
the State Board of Education retains its authority under Section
28.002 concerning the required curriculum.
(f) Not later than September 1, 2011, the vertical teams
shall complete the development of or establish minimum standards
for the curricula and related materials under Subsection (b)(5).
The vertical teams shall develop or establish minimum standards for the English language arts curricula and materials first, followed by mathematics, science, and social studies, respectively. The vertical teams shall complete the development of or establish minimum standards for the English language arts curricula and materials for approval by the State Board of Education not later than June 1, 2009. The English language arts curricula and online materials must be made available to high school students beginning with the 2009 fall semester, with the mathematics, science, and social studies curricula and online materials respectively becoming available each subsequent fall semester. This subsection expires December 1, 2012.
(g) The agency shall coordinate with the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board as necessary in administering this
section.

Section 28.009

Sec. 28.009. COLLEGE CREDIT PROGRAM. (a) Each school
district shall implement a program under which students may earn
the equivalent of at least 12 semester credit hours of college
credit in high school. On request, a public institution of higher
education in this state shall assist a school district in
developing and implementing the program.
(a-1) Not later than the fall 2008 semester, each school
district shall implement a program that meets the requirements
prescribed by Subsection (a). This subsection expires June 1,
2009.
(b) The agency shall coordinate with the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board as necessary in administering this
section.

=============================================================

Fiscal Note for Sections 28.008 and 28.009 --

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us:80/tlodocs/793/fiscalnotes/html/HB00001F.HTM

The bill would add sections 28.008 and 28.009, Education Code, to require the commissioner of education and the Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) to establish vertical teams composed of high school and higher education faculty for the purpose of aligning high school and higher education curricula and expectations, including the joint development of courses aimed at assisting students requiring additional preparation in advance of college-level work. The cost of curriculum development is estimated at $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2007.

$1,000,000 APPROPRIATED BY SECTIONS 28.008, 28.009

This $1,000,000 has been appropriated for the two Commissioners (Dr. Paredes of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and Robert Scott, Texas Commissioner of Education) to use as they see fit in getting the Vertical Team work completed.

Some of this money goes toward paying Dr. David T. Conley (http://www.s4s.org/cepr.bio.php who has been hired by Dr. Paredes and the THECB.

Dr. Conley is Professor of Educational Policy and Leadership in the College of Education, University of Oregon. He is the founder and director of the Center for Educational Policy Research (CEPR) at the University of Oregon and executive director of the Educational Policy Improvement Center (EPIC), a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization. Currently, CEPR and EPIC have grants and contracts with national and state educational agencies and organizations to perform research on a variety of issue related to college readiness standards, high school-college articulation and transition, state high school exit examinations, and state adequacy funding models.

Some of the $1,000,000 goes to pay for the meetings and expenses of the Vertical Teams [probably to pay people such as Dr. David Chard].Some of the rest of the money will go toward developing curricula and online instructional materials.

MORE EXCERPTS FROM HB 1

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/793/billtext/html/HB00001F.HTM

Section 6l.0761

SECTION 5.08. Subchapter C, Chapter 61, Education Code, is
amended by adding Sections 61.0761, 61.0762, and 61.0763 to read as
follows:
Sec. 61.0761. P-16 COLLEGE READINESS AND SUCCESS STRATEGIC
ACTION PLAN. (a) The P-16 Council established under Section 61.076
shall recommend to the commissioner of education and the board a
college readiness and success strategic action plan to increase
student success and decrease the number of students enrolling in
developmental course work in institutions of higher education. The
plan must include:
(1) definitions, as determined by the P-16 Council in
coordination with the State Board of Education, of the standards
and expectations for college readiness that address the knowledge
and skills expected of students to perform successfully in
entry-level courses offered at institutions of higher education;
(2) a description of the components of a P-16
individualized graduation plan sufficient to prepare students for
college success;
(3) the manner in which the Texas Education Agency
should provide model curricula for use as a reference tool by school
district employees;
(4) recommendations to the Texas Education Agency, the
State Board of Education, and the board regarding strategies for
decreasing the number of students enrolling in developmental course
work at institutions of higher education;
(5) recommendations to the State Board for Educator
Certification regarding changes to educator certification and
professional development requirements that contribute to the
ability of public school teachers to prepare students for higher
education; and
(6) any other elements that the commissioner of
education and the board suggest for inclusion in the plan.
(b) The commissioner of education and the board shall adopt
the college readiness and success strategic action plan recommended
by the P-16 Council if the commissioner of education and the board
determine that the plan meets the requirements of this section.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
the State Board of Education retains the board's authority over the
required curriculum adopted under Section 28.002.
(d) Not later than December 1 of each even-numbered year,
the commissioner of education and the board shall submit a report to
the governor, the lieutenant governor, the speaker of the house of
representatives, each member of the Legislative Budget Board, and
the members of the standing committees of the senate and house of
representatives with primary jurisdiction over the public school
system and higher education system describing progress in
implementing the college readiness and success strategic action
plan.
(e) The commissioner of education and the board shall adopt
rules necessary to implement this section.

Section 61.0762

Sec. 61.0762. PROGRAMS TO ENHANCE STUDENT SUCCESS. To
implement the college readiness and success strategic action plan
adopted under Section 61.0761 and to enhance the success of
students at institutions of higher education, the board by rule
shall develop:
(1) summer higher education bridge programs in the
subject areas of mathematics, science, and English language arts;
(2) incentive programs for institutions of higher
education that implement research-based, innovative developmental
education initiatives;
(3) financial assistance programs for educationally
disadvantaged students, as defined by Section 5.001, who take
college entrance and college readiness assessment instruments;
(4) professional development programs for faculty of
institutions of higher education on college readiness standards and
the implications of such standards on instruction; and
(5) other programs as determined by the board that
support the participation and success goals in "Closing the Gaps,"
the state's master plan for higher education.

Section 16.0763

Sec. 61.0763. COURSE REDESIGN PROJECT. (a) To improve
student learning and reduce the cost of course delivery, the board,
with the assistance of advisory committees and nonprofit
organizations with expertise in methodologies for developing and
delivering college-level courses in a cost-effective manner, shall
implement a project under which institutions of higher education
selected by the board will review and revise entry-level lower
division academic courses. In selecting institutions of higher
education to participate in the project, the board shall determine
the criteria for participation and must encourage collaboration
among institutions, including institutions of different types.
Participating institutions of higher education shall:
(1) review and revise one or more courses from among
not more than 25 entry-level lower division academic courses
identified by the board;
(2) draw on established best practices regarding
effective course redesign techniques;
(3) use information technology to enhance the
effectiveness of revised courses; and
(4) determine whether any cost savings and increased
student success result from the review and revision of courses
under this section.
(b) Not later than September 1, 2006, the board shall
initiate the development of the project and recruit institutions of
higher education to participate in the project. Not later than
September 1, 2007, each participating institution of higher
education shall begin offering courses reviewed and revised by the
institution under this section. Not later than September 1, 2009,
each participating institution of higher education shall submit a
report to the board describing the results of the project at the
institution. Not later than January 1, 2011, the board shall submit
a summary report describing the results of the project at
participating institutions of higher education to the clerks of the
standing committees of the senate and house of representatives with
primary jurisdiction over the higher education system.
(c) This section expires May 1, 2011.

========================================================

Fiscal Note for Sections 61.0761, 61.0762, and 61.0763 -- http://www.capitol.state.tx.us:80/tlodocs/793/fiscalnotes/html/HB00001F.HTM

The bill would add sections 61.0761, 61.0762, and 61.0763, Education Code, to require the P-16 Council to develop a college-readiness and success strategic plan. This section would require THECB to implement a course redesign project aimed at improving the delivery and cost-effectiveness of college-level courses. Total costs for the provisions of this section are estimated at $11.8 million in fiscal year 2007 and $7.2 million annually in subsequent years. These costs represent functions that would be required for TEA and THECB.

MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE P-16 COUNCIL

From what I could locate, Dr. Linda Ferreira-Buckley is on both the CCRT and the P-16 Advisory Council. I do not know whether there are other members who are on both the CCRT and the P-16.I also do not know whether any Vertical Team members serve on both the CCRT and/or the P-16.

The THECB employs a senior director to manage the P-16 (http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/Board/Jobs_Detail.cfm?JNum=1359):

Salary: $7,273.62 - $8,670 per month + benefits -- equals $87,283.44 to $104,040 + benefits

The public needs to know who is presently serving on the P-16 Advisory Council and the Vertical Teams.The public also needs to know who specifically appointed each of the P-16 Advisory Council members and the Vertical Team members.

VERY IMPORTANT: THE THECB'S RULES FOR P-16 COUNCIL

Please read through these important documents to see the THECB's rules and strategic plans for the P-16 Council:

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/Rules/tac3.cfm?Chapter_ID=4&Subchapter=H

Here is the THECB'sStrategic Plan:

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/CollegeReadiness/StrategicActionPlan.pdf

Here are the THECB's College Readiness Mandates:

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/CollegeReadiness/CRMandates.pdf.

ABSENCE OF SBOE'S AUTHORITY IN THESE DOCUMENTS

The THECB documents fail to mention the authority over K-12 which the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) has under HB 1.The only time the SBOE is mentioned in the above rules is when the SBOE is to serve as a "rubber stamp" to enact the Vertical Teams' and PC-16 Council's recommendations.

WHO IS PAYING EDVANCE?

Edvance REL-Southwest was not paid any state funding, TEA funds, or HB 1 appropriations but instead is paid with federal funds for all of their support activities. Chief Executive Officer Dean Nafziger was appointed by Gov. Perry to serve as a member of the CCRT, and Edvance has produced research on college readiness for the CCRT.

THE REPORT GIVEN TO THE LEGISLATURE ON DEC. 2006 BY DR. PAREDES, THE THECB, AND EX-COMMISSIONER SHIRLEY NEELEY

Please take time to read the report submitted on December 2006 to the 80^th Texas Legislature -- "P-16 College Readiness and Success Strategic Action Plan Implementation Report."This report was from Dr. Raymond Paredes, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, and Ex-Commissioner Shirley Neeley.

Because of the way this report is worded, it seems obvious to me that the writers intentionally ignored the authority of the elected SBOE members and have attempted to put the authority for P-12 into the hands of the P-16 Council and the Vertical Teams.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/comm/cr_implementationreport.pdf

OTHER LINKS TO IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE P-16 COUNCIL AND THE VERTICAL TEAMS

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/p16/p16council.html

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/p16/council_mtg_attach/minutes/feb04_minutes.pdf

http://www.utexas.edu/academic/diia/news/2005/p-16_council.php

http://www.tbec.org/execcommit.php

http://www.governor.state.tx.us/priorities/education/early_ed

http://www.texasp-16.com/pdf/2007_09_19_minutes.pdf

http://texasp-16.com/files/UTPB_P-16_101807.ppt

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/schedule/2006/september/instruction/attachment/4_p16_a.html

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist21/pr07/p102907b.htm

http://www.p16texas.org/P16_Council_Structure.pdf