Sunday, 6 November 2011 by Marcus Aquinas.

Since this is an odd-numbered year, the November election date usually passes unremarked in Texas as most local offices are elected in May and state-wide offices are elected in even-numbered years. This year, however, we have 10 proposed amendments to the state constitution which require voter ratification. Texas is either #1 or #2 as far as number of times its state constitution has been amended (when you’re second-best, you try harder, I guess).

Generally speaking, amendments fall into one of three categories. First, because many county offices are mandated by the constitution, counties that want to eliminate, consolidate or otherwise reorganize must seek constitutional approval to do so. Second, thanks to Reconstruction, our state legislature is extremely limited in what it can and cannot do. Providing authority to do some things requires a constitutional amendment. Third, there are some people out there who think that a constitutional amendment is better than a law, so they propose amendments when lobbying their state officials might accomplish the same end.

With those prefacing remarks, here’s my take on the latest batch.

Proposition 1: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran.”

Sounds nice on paper. We all want to honor our vets, especially those who have been disabled in service to our country, but this isn’t for the vets. They already have the exemption and the state wants to transfer that exemption to their surviving spouse. I find no compelling reason to believe that a surviving spouse cannot get a job and pay those taxes. If it’s an issue of the spouse being hit with taxes owed due to the loss of the exemption, then I’m all for a method of working that out. But the amendment isn’t trying to do that. It’s just passing on the exemption from a disabled person to a non-disabled person. “Nay.”

Proposition 2: “The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $6 billion at any time outstanding.”

General obligation bonds are typically issued for capital improvements, not for general operational expenses. All this does is raise the debt ceiling and I don’t see a problem with it. It will mean higher taxes, but that’s kind of how it is with capital improvements and Texas’ population isn’t getting any smaller. Water availability is critical. Short answer? “Yea”.

Proposition 3: “The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds of the State of Texas to finance educational loans to students.”

Here’s the short version: Texas wants to borrow money in order to loan money. Not only “no”, but “hell no.” If the state wants to loan money to students in order to finance higher education, lets do it through the general state revenues rather than putting it on the credit card. A resounding “Nay!”

Proposition 4: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped or, or blighted area and to pledge for repayment of the bonds or notes increases in ad valorem taxes imposed by the county on property in the area. The amendment does not provide authority for increasing ad valorem tax rates.”

This is apparently another of those things the legislature cannot presently do. This is not obligating the state to borrow or repay. It is strictly for the counties. Since the county commissioners are answerable to their constituencies, I don’t see a problem with letting them do that, but I’d rather see them do it directly through taxes rather than “borrow now, worry about repayment after I’m out of office”. On the whole, I think “Yea,” but grudgingly so and only because county governments are ultimately answerable to their constituencies.

Proposition 5: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to allow cities or counties to enter into interlocal contracts with other cities or counties without the imposition of a tax or the provision of a sinking fund.”

Hmmm. We’re going to let you make agreements which might cost money, but we’re not going to require that you provide any method of repayment if it does. Can we all make like horses? “Neigh!”

Proposition 6: “The constitutional amendment clarifying references to the Permanent School Fund, allowing the General Land Office to distribute revenue from Permanent School Fund land or other properties to the available school fun to provide additional funding for public education, and providing for an increase in the market value of the Permanent School Fund for the purpose of allowing increased distributions from the available school fund.”

A really wordy way of saying it. Because Texas was never a territory of the United States, the public lands in Texas belong to Texas. The Republic of Texas, under Mirabeau Lamar, set aside public lands to help finance public education back around 1840. With some (OK, “many”) modifications, the system survives today. Some revenues from public lands go toward public education and the amendment seems to want to authorize the General Land Office to be able to increase its contributions to the Available School Fund, especially those that come from land use revenues (oil and gas revenues, grazing fees, and that sort of thing). While I do see a downside to it down the road, the current state of Texas finances would make it prudent in the short-term and it does not appear to encumber the principal of the Permanent School Fund. I give it a grudging “yea”.

Proposition 7: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities.”

Since I live in El Paso County and vote, and as long as the country commissioners are willing to feel my boot if they abuse the notion, I don’t have a problem with it. Increasing property taxes is a good way to get that boot moving in their direction, but since I won’t be suffering alone in that regard, I’m good with it. Note that it does not authorize a parks system, but merely permits the creation of one if the voters in El Paso County choose to do so. That’s a topic for us and all we’re doing is asking permission to discuss it and implement it if that’s the general consensus in this neck of the woods. To steal a line from 1776, "I’ve never seen, heard, nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about.” An unqualified “Yea.”

Proposition 8: “The constitutional amendment providing for the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of open-space land devoted to water-stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity.”

Cacti, roadrunners, rattlesnakes and coyotes don’t pay much in the way of taxes. Consequently, this type of land generates next to nothing in the way of revenue unless its value lies in something other than simple real estate. The constitution already allows some lands to be taxed on their productive capacity rather than their real estate value. The proposition adds water resources to those few other uses. I don’t necessarily have to like it (give the government the power to tax something and they will do so), but I can see that it’s a practical solution to a perennial problem and there aren’t any others being proposed aside from “let’s keep doing things the way we have been”. How’s that workin’ for ya? “Yea.”

Proposition 9: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the governor to grant a pardon to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication community service.”

Considering that the governor’s options on the matter of pardons are pretty much limited to what the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles tells him he can do, I don’t see an issue. The problem is that those who are operating under deferred adjudication haven’t been convicted of anything and, thus, are ineligible for pardons. While deferred adjudication doesn’t appear on the criminal record as a conviction, it does appear as an arrest and as probation, so I can see where the granting of a pardon and the chance to expunge the record could be a good thing. And, again, the governor is very limited in this regard. I give it a “Yea.”

Proposition 10: “The constitutional amendment to change the length of the unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation of certain elected county or district officeholders if they become candidates for another office.”

Some county officials must resign their offices if they announce their candidacy for another office more than a year before their term expires (almost all terms expire on December 31). New filing deadlines have moved the candidacy filing date to December 2, so a County Clerk who wants to run for Sheriff, for example, would be forced to resign under the existing rule. This would necessitate a special election to fill the vacancy rather than letting them serve out their term and also deprive the county of a somewhat- or well-experienced County Clerk. The proposition would allow a prospective candidate to meet the current filing deadline and still serve their term. While I’m not fond of the idea of running for office while neglecting your current duties, it would nevertheless reduce the number (and expense) of special elections. A grudging “yea” for being the lesser of two evils.

Posted in Politics, Musings and Thoughts, Education | No Comments »

Saturday, 27 August 2011 by Marcus Aquinas.

The new school year is in session and promises to be interesting (as in, “may you live in interesting times”). My school participates in the national free and reduced-price lunch and breakfast programs administered by the USDA.

In simple terms, the USDA will reimburse the school up to a certain amount per student who qualifies for the program. Since the vast majority of our students qualify, our whole district receives the maximum reimbursement from the USDA. If memory works as a guide, that comes out to about $2 per student for breakfast and about $3 per student for lunch, or about $5 per student per day. In order to reduce staffing costs in the cafeteria, breakfast is delivered and served in the classroom, but lunch is served cafeteria style in the cafeteria.

I had forgotten something important in my car the other morning, so I took advantage of an assembly to pop out and retrieve it. This just happened to be right after we finished clearing away the breakfast stuff and I was shocked at what was going into the dumpsters. Hundreds of dollars of unopened/unused food items just headed for the local landfill.

This was done for food safety reasons, as far as I can tell. Not being anything even remotely resembling a certified nutritionist, chef or food service manager, my take on this is decidedly uninformed, so keep that in mind. If I understand correctly, those little 8-oz. milk cartons have to be kept at or below a certain temperature until they are served. Once they are pulled out of the refrigerator, of course, they begin to warm up to whatever the ambient temperature is (at this time of year, that would be “hot”, air conditioning notwithstanding). If they cross that temperature threshold, they must be thrown out. I suspect that the same is true of fresh fruit and most especially true for hot food such as pancakes, sausage and the rest. No one wants recycled breakfast burritos, I’m sure.

The USDA requirement is that in order to qualify for reimbursement under the program, the meal must be served to the student. My students are required to take one of each item. If they don’t want the item after it has been given to them, they are welcome to give it to another student and I’ll snag the occasional uneaten apple or something before it hits the trashcan. But unwanted items typically just go into the trash and from there to the local landfill. So take that $2 (for breakfast), multiply it by several hundred students, times 180 school days and we’re talking close to $100,000 per year going to the landfill. And that’s just from my school. According to the USDA, 11.1 million students were being served in this program in the 2009-2010 school year, at a cost of $2.9 billion. It’s undoubted near or higher than that number for this school year. You can roughly triple those numbers for the school lunch program.

I am not faulting the USDA for this waste. Whether the program is necessary on this scale is probably the subject of much debate and I don’t have enough information to have an informed opinion one way or the other. For the time being, I’ll simply accept that it is necessary and proceed from there.

I am not faulting the school or the district. They are doing precisely what is required by the USDA and I’m relatively sure that our cafeteria could not operate without the program. Lizards, rattlesnakes, tumbleweeds and cacti aren’t real good about paying their property taxes, so local revenue sources are pretty slim and we’ll take any help we can get to defray any expense we can.

I am not even faulting the students. If they don’t want something, it’s not my place to shove it down their throats. If childhood obesity is the problem that everyone claims it is, then forcing a child to take in calories that they don’t want seems counter-productive.

But there is something out of kilter when every piece of the government is screaming about not having enough money to <insert function here> and we’re literally sending billions per year to the landfill. Some of it is inevitable. There honestly isn’t much else you can do with half of a burrito or a third of a salad. But we might start with a bit of common sense. Anyone in your household suffered from food poisoning due to an apple or banana being at room temperature for a couple of days or the milk warming a little on its way home from the grocery store? And while you’re thinking about that, consider what else your local school could do with the money that they’re having to send to the dump.

Posted in Education, Carthago delenda est, Whatever | No Comments »

Monday, 26 April 2010 by Marcus Aquinas.

Brian Leiter’s blog (Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog) linked to an interesting review by Troy Jollimore at TruthDig of Martha Nusbaum’s book, “Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities”. Perhaps I am just more aware of the issue than I had been in the past, but the review raised a number of very interesting points as to the value of the Humanities in a well-rounded education. A similar point was made by Robert Paul Wolff (see my earlier post for the link) in slightly different terms.I confess to having a somewhat personal axe to grind on the issue since it pertains to my own education. Most of my readings in the traditional Liberal Arts have been at my own instigation. On the one hand, I have enjoyed the freedom to explore, question and ponder pretty much as my curiosity has directed me. On the other hand, this has happened in an environment with few people who were capable of telling me when I was full of it or not; their educations being even more lacking in this area than mine. But on one point, coming from an admittedly limited and informal foundation, I have to agree: the Liberal Arts help the student develop a particular sympathy for others’ viewpoints. To sacrifice that for economic gain is to do a great disservice not only here, but to the future.

If of thy mortal goods thou art bereft,

And from thy slender store two loaves alone to thee are left,

Sell one, and with the dole

Buy hyacinths to feed thy soul.

–Moslih Eddin Saadi, Gulistan

Posted in Education | No Comments »

Wednesday, 14 April 2010 by Marcus Aquinas.

While working with a student after school, I witnessed an incident that set me to thinking about knowledge, how we acquire it, and the acceptable parameters under which it is acquired.

The student was checking email while we were chatting on a variety of topics. To paraphrase part of an old Tom Lehrer song, when correctly viewed, everything is Social Studies. So my after-hours conversation with students tend to ramble a lot and checking email during such a conversation was a non-issue from my perspective. After reading the email, the student told me “(a person who shall remain nameless, but who really should know better than to have done this) said the answer to #2 is ‘False’.” To which I gave my standard response, “I don’t know… is it?” Personally, I think the student was trying to wheedle answers out of me as a way to avoid doing the reading and/or assignment on their own, but still wanted a good grade on the assignment (kids will do that). But since I wasn’t in the mood to let the wheedling succeed so easily, I set the student to comparing what they already knew against what the other student had told them and had them reach their own conclusion. For the record, the other student was correct, but it’s the principle that set me to wondering.

To put it all into context, the question (a modified true-false) was intended to show a rudimentary understanding of how the abundance of cotton, combined with the availability of reliable transportation (railroads) led to the establishment of several textile mills in Texas in the late 1900s.

The question that bothers me is how that understanding is acquired. The student who sent the answer read the assigned material, took that information and applied it to a given situation (fellow educators will recognize this as sitting at about the mid-point of Bloom’s taxonomy), while the second student had not. Both students know that Texas produced a lot of cotton in the late 1800s and both students know that textile mills process cotton, turning it into thread or cloth. The first student knows that this became possible because the railroads allowed easy transport of the raw materials to the mills and the finished product from the mills. I’m fairly sure that the second student knows this because I led them down the garden path to get to that conclusion. But let’s imagine that there were other addressees on the email. I’m not sure that they know this last piece of information. They may know the first two things, but the only thing of which I can be certain is that they have good reason to believe that statement #2 is false.

All of which, with a couple of brewskis on top, leads me to the issue. What, if anything, has been communicated through this whole exchange? From my point of view, both students have adequately met some of the objectives for the lesson, at least by the measure of my assessment instrument. But it should be painfully obvious that only the first student (the one who did the assignment) has the potential of being able to extrapolate from the knowledge set to some piece of new knowledge. The second student might or might not. For any other student, I’d bet on “not”; for this particular student it’s close to 50/50 (teenagers are like that, but I have hope for the future).

By almost anyone’s criteria, the first student has acquired the requisite knowledge. Absent my intervention, the second student would not have, but did in the end. The question, I suppose, is whether the method of acquiring that knowledge is of greater, equal or lesser importance than the knowledge itself. To my mind, they seem of about equal importance. I often wonder whether our public education system shares the same view.

Posted in Education, Philosophy | No Comments »

Thursday, 18 March 2010 by Marcus Aquinas.

The Spring issue of “American Educator” showed up in my mailbox today. There must be something in the water. In response to Dr. Wolff’s lecture (links to a QuickTime .mov – runs about an hour), I was preparing a rather lengthy rant entitled “The Necessity of a Liberal Education” when I saw two related articles occupying a sizable chunk of the magazine:

“The Most Daring Education Reform of All” by Diana Senechal (links to a .pdf)

“21st Century Skills” by Andrew J. Rotherham and Daniel T. Willingham (links to a .pdf)

Hmmmm. I’ve never really considered myself to be at or near the cutting edge of anything, especially when it comes to hot educational issues, so it must be a combination of the Luck o’ the Irish and the corned beef and cabbage I had for St. Patrick’s Day. Perhaps that’s my cue to go buy a lottery ticket. Probably not.

The Most Daring Education Reform of All

21st Century Skills: Not New, but a Worthy Challenge

Posted in Education | No Comments »