DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 412 032 RC 021 134

TITLE Policy. IDRA Focus.INSTITUTION Intercultural Development Research Association, San Antonio,

TX.

ISSN ISSN-1069-5672PUB DATE 1997-08-00NOTE 17p.

PUB TYPE Collected Works Serials (022)

JOURNAL CIT IDRA Newsletter; v24 n7 Aug 1997EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Affirmative Action; *Bilingual Education; Charter Schools;

*Dropouts; *Educational Equity (Finance); EducationalLegislation; *Educational Policy; Elementary SecondaryEducation; Equal Education; Hispanic Americans; Immigrants;Limited English Speaking; Property Taxes; School Policy;*Sexual Harassment; *State Legislation; Student Attrition

IDENTIFIERS *Texas

ABSTRACTThis newsletter includes five articles about educational and

school policies, primarily related to equality of educational opportunity."Texas Legislature Considers Much for Education, Accomplishes Little" (AlbertCortez, Anna Alicia Romero) summarizes educational legislation considered bythe Texas legislature in the session ending in June 1997. Issues includedincreases in state education spending negated by cutbacks in local revenues;modest increases in minimum teacher salaries; continued underfunding ofeducation for low-income, limited-English-proficient, gifted and talented,and special education students; continued funding inequality between schooldistricts; and two bills that would increase the chances of minorities beingadmitted to institutions of higher education without including race as afactor. "Sexual Harassment Policies and Schools" (Maria Aurora Yanez-Perez)points out that the Civil Rights Act applies to education and schools, anddiscusses definitions of sexual harassment, written policies, staff andstudent training, and grievance procedures. "Hispanic Dropouts: Addressingthe Leak in the Pipeline to Higher Education" (Maria Robledo Montecel) statesthat rising Hispanic dropout rates are linked to inadequacies throughout theeducational system, points out past pitfalls to be avoided, and identifiesstrategies for reversing the trend. "Equal Access: Mask of Discrimination"(Oscar M. Cardenas) addresses the myth that equal opportunity can be achievedby treating each child alike. "Policies Affecting Bilingual Education and ESLPrograms" (Elisa de Leon Gutierrez) discusses proposed new standards forSpanish language arts and English as a second language in Texas schools,testing of limited-English-proficient students, and the importance oflanguage skills to Texas' success in the global economy. (TD)

********************************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

********************************************************************************

to, DE VEt()AA_

enOebq

et

1.1.1

*

IDRA Focus:POLICY

IDRA Newsletter 1111111=1111111M

Inside this Issue:

O Sexual harassment policies

0 Hispanic dropouts testimony

0 Mask of discrimination

',.40 Bilingual education policies,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCdrIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.Minor changes have been made to

improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS

MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Garz_ci

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)"

.;

ISSN 1069-5672 Volume XXIV, No. 7 August 1997

TEXAS LEGISLATURE CONSIDERS MUCH

FOR EDUCATION, ACCOMPLISHES LITTLE

Albert Cortez, Ph.D. and Anna Alicia Romero

The Texas legislative session thatended in the first week of June may well beremembered more for what it did not do foreducation than for the limited amount ofprogress it did make. It started as an optimis-tic session buoyed by the state's first $1.3billion budget surplus in more than a de-cade. It ended as a major disappointment formany people when House and Senate con-ferees failed to reach a compromise on amajor education bill.

IDRA has been focusing on five ma-jor policy issues. These are

school finance equity,public funding for private schooling,immigrant education,access to higher education, andbilingual education and state languagepolicy.

IDRA monitored these issues through-out the five-month legislative session. Staffattended hearings where the issues weredeliberated, reviewed texts of proposedpolicy changes, and provided feedback andtechnical assistance to policy-makers whorequested our assistance. This article out-lines the context surrounding these issues,the policy options that were considered andthe final actions that were taken.

School Finance Equity andProperty Tax Relief

With the news of a large state treasurysurplus, Gov. George Bush Jr. proposed abold plan to reduce local school propertytaxes. The plan included a correspondingcommitment to reimburse local school sys-tems using the projected surplus.

The House Select Committee on Rev-enue and Public Education Funding eventu-

Rrsir COPY AVA TT ABLE 2

ally adopted a version of the plan calling fornew taxes, including the creation of a newstatewide property tax on businesses, ex-pansion of the state franchise tax, and broad-ening of the sales tax base to include moregoods and services. The plan also called forincreases in state education funding throughthe following:

Dollar-per-dollar reimbursement of anystate-mandated reductions in local prop-erty taxes.Significant increases in the levels ofguar-anteed yield.Creation of a new guaranteed yield tierthat would provide limited state equal-ized funding for program enrichment orfunding for existing facilities.Provision of a new funding tier to helplocal districts pay for the cost of newfacilities.Extension of hold harmless clauses al-lowing the state's wealthiest school dis-tricts to continue to spend at their 1992-1993 revenue per pupil levels (the lastyear before the Edgewood litigation re-forms took effect).

The House plan called for propertytax relief by requiring local school districtsto reduce property tax rates by an amountequal to whatever increase in state fundingwas being provided to them. The rel iefwouldalso be achieved by taking out statutorylanguage that required wealthy districts(those districts generating more than$280,000) to select one of five ways thatmonies raised over the $280,000 thresholdcould be made available to.the state to helpequalize the funding disparities in the over-all system.

Texas Legislature - continued on page

1 IN THIS .ISSUE

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Pouclas AND SCHOOLS

111HISPAMCDROPOUTS: LEAK IN THE

PIPELINE TO HIGHER EDUCATION

REFLECTIONS & COMMENTARY

NEWSLETTER EDITORL4L PAGE

aPOLICIES AFFECTING BILINGUAL

EDUCATION AND ESL PROGRAMS

The Intercultural Development Re-search Association (IDRA) is a non-profitorganization with a 501(c)(3) tax exemptstatus. The purpose of the organization isto disseminate information concerningequality of educational opportunity. TheIDRA Newsletter(ISSN 1069-5672, copy-right ©1997) serves as a vehicle for com-munication with educators, school boardmembers, decision-makers, parents, andthe general public concerning the educa-tional needs of all children in Texas andacross the United States.

Publication offices:5835 Callaghan Road, Suite 350San Antonio, Texas 78228-1190210/684-8180; Fax 210/684-5389

IDRA World Wide Web site:http://www.idra.org

IDRA E-mail Address:idra@idra.org

Maria Robledo Montecel, Ph.D.IDRA Executive Director

Newsletter Executive Editor

Christie L Goodman, APRIDRA Communications Manager

Newsletter Production Editor

Sarah H. AlemanIDRA Data Entry Clerk

Newsletter Typesetter

Permission to reproduce material con-tained herein is granted provided the ar-ticle or item is reprinted in its entirety andproper credit is given to IDRA and theauthor. Please send a copy of the materialin its reprinted form to the IDRA Newslet-ter production offices. Editorial submis-sions, news releases, subscription re-quests, and change-of-address data shouldbe submitted in writing to the NewsletterProduction Editor. The IDRA Newsletterstaff welcomes your comments on edito-rial material.

Texas Legislature - continued from page 1

The controversial statewide propertytax on businesses (and the correspondingremoval of this business property from localschool tax rolls) was a key building block inthe House plan. Specifically, the House planproposed to create a new statewide propertytax on businesses by

removing all business property from thelocal tax base and subsequent taxing ofproperty at the state level at a maximumrate of $1.05 per $100 of value;expanding the state franchise taxes onbusinesses, including the taxation of non-corporate business entities other thansole proprietors;expanding significantly the sales tax baseto include many previously exemptedgood and services;increasing insurance premium taxes byeliminating certain existing premium taxcredits and exemptions;increasing portions of state lottery pro-ceeds retained by decreasing the lotteryprize percentages; and

increasing excise taxes on alcohol, andtobacco products.

As a result, the House tax packageadded an estimated 700,000 new taxpayersand generated well over $1 billion in in-creased revenues.

The Senate was forced to wait sinceall proposed state tax bills must originate inthe House of Representatives. The Housedid not adopt its proposal until the last weekin April, which left the Senate very littletime to either develop its own proposal or tomodify the House plan.

No major action on a Senate schoolfinance plan was initiated because the Sen-ate members recognized that major educa-tion finance plans are inextricably tied to thestate appropriations process, which in turnis tied to the proposed tax reform plan.

Nonetheless, the Senate attempted tocraft its own proposal over a two-weekperiod. After hearing extensive testimonycritical of the House plan and receivingmany alternatives by business and education

Texas Legislature - continued on page 10

INTERNET WEB SITES FOR POLICY AND SOCIAL STUDIES

Cable News Network www.cnnsf.com/Country Maps from W3 Servers www.tue.nl/europe/1DRA Desegregation Assistance Center South Central Collaborative

www.idra.org/dac-sccThe Electronic Newstand

www.enews.comExpo WWW Exhibit Organization

sunsite.unc.edu/expoFedworld Information Network

www.fedworld.govHolocaust Memorial Museum

. www.ushmm.org/Hotseat: Job Interview Simulation www.kaplan.com/career/hotseat/Intercultural Development Research Association www.idra.orgInternet Law Library Code of Federal Regulations

law.house.gov/cfr.htmThomas (federal legislative information) thomas.loc.govNational Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education ( NCBE) www.ncbe.gwu.edu

National Public Radio www.npr.org/STAR Center (Support for Texas Academic Renewal) www.starcenter.orgTexas Association of School Boards www.tasb.orgTexas Education Network (TENET) www.tenet.edu/Texas Education Agency www.tea.state.tx.us/Texas Legislature On-line www.capitol.state.tx.usU.S. Census Bureau www.census.govU.S. Citylink www.neosoft.com:80/citylinkU.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/U.S. Government Sites

gopher://marvel.loc.gov:70/1 1 /federal/fedinfo/byagency/generalVocational Education www.careermosaic.comWhite House www.whitehouse.gov

hitt."%v:;r-,.%7L41F-.17.1.M1Fg::,-V-1/4.ff :J4ith \

ANWEIVM/WA°'111/Mtger- IMF. 1111WW11111

WEVOKIHMAZgeSeYwitIbmwArmasPx

oft .110060 ~NINA/ A111111 ACII C

August 1997 IDRA Newsletter

SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICIES AND SCHOOLS

Sexual harassment in schools, as inthe workplace, has definitely taken itsplace in the public eye. Schools havereceived their wake-up call throughhighly publicized and costly litigation.Schools seem to be aware of sexualharassment, especially student-to-studentsexual harassment, but they sometimes havedifficulty addressing the issue because of itsvolatile nature. IDRA has publishednumerous articles on this topic before, twoof which are referenced below. This articleis part of the continuing efforts by IDRA toprovide ongoing information on sexualharassment in schools.

policy handbooks.

Staff TrainingStaff members within the school

must receive training to sensitize themto issues ofharassment. Fundamentally,they must understand that only one type

of relationship should exist between themand their students: a professional relation-ship. In addition to understanding the issueof sexual harassment, staff members mustalso take a strong stand against it. This isvital within schools because staff membersare the students' role models and thus needto exhibit appropriate behavior.

Principals should conduct periodic"environmental scanning" to determinestudent, teacher and staff attitudes withintheir schools.

Defining Sexual HarassmentThe legal definition for sexual

harassment is still evolving, but some helpfulinterpretations have emerged. PeggyOrenstein presents a definition that relatesto school situations whether they be studentto student, employee to student or vice versa.She says that sexual harassment consists ofsexual advances, requests for sexual favorsand other inappropriate verbal or physicalconduct of a sexual nature when any of thefollowing occur:

Submission is made, either explicitly orimplicitly, a term or condition of anindividual's employment or education.Submission or rejection by the harasseeis used as the basis for academic oremployment decisions affecting thatindividual.Such conduct has the purpose or effect ofsubstantially interfering with anindividual's academic or professionalperformance, or creating an intimidating,hostile or offensive employment oreducational environment (Orenstein,1994).

The two forms of sexual harassmentthat are identified within school settings arequidpro quo and hostile environment sexualharassment. Quid pro quo in its simplestform involves an exchange such as sexualfavors for grades. The hostile environmentform involves a prevailing course ofconduct,action or behavior that is offensive to a"reasonable person" similarly situated.

Thus, sexual harassment is not basedon the content or the intention ofthe harasserbut in the perception of the person who isbeing influenced.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended,employees are protected from discriminationdue to race, national origin or gender.Recently, principles from Title VII havebeen applied to education and schools. TitleIX specifically forbids sex discrimination inschools and other educational organizationsthat receive federal government funds. Itsprotection of students and employeesincludes the areas ofrecruitment, advertising,hiring, upgrading, tenure, firing, rates ofpay, fringe benefits, leave for pregnancyand childbirth, and participation in employer-sponsored activities.

These definitions and laws are theframework that guide sexual harassmentpolicies today. Now that we know whatsexual harassment is and what guides manyof the court actions taking place throughoutthe nation, it is important to go through thesteps of how school districts can preventsexual harassment.

Written PoliciesSchool districts can begin at the most

basic level by creating written policies thatprohibit sexual harassment. A school dis-trict has to send a clear message that certainbehaviors will not be tolerated. Definitionsand examples of inappropriate behaviorshould be included to avoid any ambiguityor confusion. Once these clear rules havebeen established, schools should post themin locations accessible to students, facultyand staff. Title IX requires that the informa-tion be distributed annually to employees.

The policy should clarify that when acomplaint is reported, everyone involvedwill be treated with anonymity. Also, everysite within the school district needs to havea complaint manager at the district levelwho gathers and keeps all the information.This is vital when and if a complaint isbrought forward.

A last fundamental step is to includespecific language regarding sexualharassment in students' and employees'

Student TrainingSchools need to provide information

to students about what constitutesappropriate and inappropriate behavior.Mary Joe McGrath states that many studentswho have received sensitivity trainingregarding sexual harassment in schools havechanged. Once they understood that sexualharassment includes unwanted touching anddegrading behaviors and language, theybegan to oppose those types of behaviors(1996).

Sensitizing students effectively willnot discourage them from exploringrelationships and understanding thatrelationships can be mutually satisfying ifboth parties want the attention. That is notthe purpose. The purpose is to teach studentsthat it is not "okay" to keep quiet when thebehavior of one student makes another feelembarrassed, uncomfortable or threatened.

Grievance ProceduresFinally, schools should have

appropriate grievance procedures to ensurethat students will be heard and believed. Theprocedures should provide both formal andinformal opportunities. Schools can oftenavoid going through costly court proceduresif appropriate action is taken during aninformal investigation. Mary Larsonsuggests using the following questions toreview grievance procedures:

Does the grievance procedure provide anopportunity for informal consultation and,

Sexual Harassment - continued on page 15

August 1997 IDRA Newsletter

4

HISPANIC DROPOUTS:

ADDRESSING THE LEAK IN THE PIPELINE TO HIGHER EDUCATION

Editor 's Note: In June, IDRA submitted testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforceasit considered reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The committee focused part of its discussion on the dropout rates of Hispanicstudents. The following is an overview of IDRA 's testimony.

At IDRA, our work in the preventionand recovery of dropouts has impactedschools, programs and policy across thecountry. This work is undergirded by threetenets:

Current dropout rates are unacceptable,and our country must not continue toincur the social, political and economiccosts attendant to these rates.Excellence in education and the resultantsocial, political and economic benefitsare only possible in a context of equityand inclusivity.Excellence in education can be achievedthrough commitment and capacity.

As adults, we must speak for thosewho have no voice our children and youth.We have a responsibility to ensure that all ofour children have equitable opportunitiesfor success. If we fail, this country will havelost all that our children could have andwould have been. And right now, we arefailing our children.

In this country, more than one out of10 Hispanic students drops out of schoolevery year. According to a Census Bureaureport released last month, the high schooldropout rate among Hispanics rose to 11.6percent in 1995, from 9.2 percent in 1994.This is the highest level this decade. It ismore than double the national rate, whichalso rose to 5.4 percent in 1995, from 5percent in 1994.

Although Hispanic students comprise12 percent of the U.S. student high schoolpopulation, they make up almost 22 percentof dropouts. Furthermore, of all studentswho drop out of school, half are Hispanic.

According to the National Center forEducation Statistics, of all Hispanics in theUnited States between the ages of 16 and 24,more than one out ofthree will have droppedout of school. IDRA ' s research found that ofall Hispanics who drop out, half do so be-fore entering the ninth grade. We also foundthat 85 percent of Texas dropouts were bornin the United States.

We have a leak in our educationalpipeline of students beginning elementaryschool, continuing through high school and

WE HAVE MANY, MANY YOUNG

PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE

EXCELLED IN HIGHER EDUCATION,

WHO WOULD HAVE HAD THE TOOLS

THEY NEEDED TO MAKE A GREATER

IMPACT ON THEIR COMMUNITIES, IF

ONLY WE HAD PLUGGED THE LEAK

THAT GOT IN THEIR WAY.

pursuing higher education. So we have amuch smaller pool of young people who areavailable to participate in higher education.And we have many young people who wouldhave excelled in higher education and pos-sessed the tools needed to make a greaterimpact on their communities, if only we hadplugged the leak that got in their way.

We have had this leak for a long time.Nationally, the dropout rate has climbedsince 1982, and it is currently even higherthat it was in 1967. For Hispanics in particu-lar, the rate has been higher than its currentlevel in only two of the last 23 years.

State-level data is even more telling.In Texas, IDRA calculates the longitudinaltrends of attrition rates. In the last 10 years,the percent of students (all races andethnicities) lost from public school enroll-ment has worsened, from 33 percent in1985-86 to 42 percent in 1995-96. One outof every two Hispanic students drops out ofschool. When you look at the trend amongHispanics over time, this number has in-creased over the past 10 years: from 45percent of Hispanic students dropping outof school in 1986 to 53 percent in 1996.

A number of initiatives and policieswithin schools, cities and states have beenundertaken. Many are not working.

Two years ago, I participated with thePresident's Advisory Commission on Edu-cational Excellence for Hispanic Ameri-cans in taking a look at the education ofHispanics in elementary and secondaryschools. The commission's report publishedlast September, Our Nation on the Fault

Line: Hispanic American Education Drop-outs, concludes, "Hispanic American stu-dents' high dropout rates are linked to vari-ous inefficiencies and inadequacies through-out the educational system."

What we have done has not workedbecause schools do not do what needs doingin terms of Hispanic students. Often times,what little has been done, has been donepoorly and often has actually been counter-productive. Responses for preventing andrecovering dropouts must avoid the com-mon pitfalls listed below that in the pasthave doomed such efforts to failure.

Deficit model base. It is erroneousand counterproductive to assume that thetarget population is entirely to blame foreducational failure. Deficit models place astress on changing the characteristics of astudent so that the student will fit into schoolprograms created for homogeneous popula-tions. In many cases, it is impossible for thestudents to make such a transformation. Inother cases, it is questionable whether it isdesirable to do so. In all cases, it is detrimen-tal to initiate relationships between studentand school with the student's rejection ofself as the basis for acceptance and integra-tion. The essence of a successful school-student relationship is not the characteris-tics of the student, nor of the school, but theextent to which each can accommodate theother's characteristics.

Elitist model base. The preventionand recovery of school dropouts cannot bebased on the assumption that some studentsare valuable and others are valueless. Pro-grammatic efforts that aim at the improve-ment or enhancement of educational oppor-tunities for some students at the expense ofothers are counterproductive. Such "trickledown" reform efforts usually end up re-forming schools to benefit those who arealready doing well and say "life's tough" tothose who are not. The need for a skilled,literate and educated work force precludesthe development of a small elite backed bymassive numbers of unproductive, func-tional illiterates.

Hispanic Dropouts - continued on page 5

August 1997 4 IDRA Newsletgr

Hispanic Dropouts - continued from page 4

Simplistic and superficial responses.Since the causes for students dropping outof school are extremely complex, it is doubt-ful that an effective solution can be foundbased on simplistic superficial approachesto the problem. On the contrary, effective-ness will require comprehensive approachesthat are also cost-beneficial.

Impractical approaches. Solutionsto the problem of school dropouts must be

feasible in terms of changing variables thatare within the control of the school. Solu-tions must also be realistic in terms of costsand incentives within a public school set-ting. Thus, persons involved in the develop-ment of feasible approaches for the reduc-tion of dropout rates must be intimatelyacquainted with the realities of schools.

Dysfunctional responses. In the his-tory of the schools' relationships with spe-cial populations, it is not uncommon to findeducational policies and practices that wereaimed at the amelioration or elimination ofa problem but turned out to be useless or, in

some cases, exacerbated theproblem. Therehas been little sensitivity to the needs ofatypical students. Education is not a "onesize fits all" kind ofbusiness. Dysfunctionalresponses are usually created by ignoranceof non-middle-class values and orientationsand by a belief that atypical populations willbe motivated by the same stimuli foundeffective with middle-class populations.

The President's Advisory Commis-sion called for the nation to improve educa-tion for Hispanic Americans: "Interventionmeasures, therefore, must be aimed at theelementary level and secondary level sincea very large percent drop out early. Simplyput, there is a need for more programsdesigned to bring the performance o f Latin ostudents up to par with other groups."

In its 24-year experience and researchin education and dropout prevention, IDRAhas identified the following as critical toreversing the trend of high dropout rates,particularly among Hispanic students.

Strategies must impact the triad ofschool, family and community, and stu-dent. The dropout problem is a complexphenomenon that involves the configura-tion of student, school, and family and com-munity characteristics. It is essential that anexamination and understanding of the rela-tionships among these characteristics guidethe development of dropout prevention andrecovery strategies.

Strategies must be based on theunderstanding of the heterogeneity and

the need for local adaptation of interven-tion models. Efforts to identify and profilestudents at high risk of dropping out mustincorporate this recognition. For instance, amiddle school male who drops out of a smallsuburban school may differ greatly from a10th grade female urban school dropout. Intandem with the recognition of heterogene-ity and the development of profiles (ratherthan a universal profile), we must recognizethat a variety of models must be developed.These must be responsive to the range ofstudent, school and community characteris-tics identified, and they must then be adaptedto the characteristics of a local situation.

Strategies must include informedpublic policy. Public policy must incorpo-rate analyses of costs and benefits. Theconcept that education is a significant andlegitimate economic investment that yieldspersonal and social returns has been largelyaccepted by economists, policy-makers,educators and social service practitioners.The development of human capital in termsof formal education plays a role in increas-ing production through the income-generat-ing capacity of the labor force and increas-ing efficiency by reducing welfare costs andreleasing public resources for more produc-tive pursuits. In the long-term context, costcategories include per pupil expenditures,youth remediation expenses and trainingcosts. Benefits include reduced dependenceon welfare programs (unemployment insur-ance) and reduced antisocial behavior suchas drug and alcohol abuse, criminal activityand related expenses.

In 1986, IDRA conducted the firststatewide study of dropouts in the state ofTexas. The study looked at the magnitude;the identification, counting and reporting ofdropouts; the cost to our country; and whatwe were doing about it. Our research re-sulted in the state legislature passing HouseBill 1010 in 1987 that required standardidentification and reporting procedures ofstudents who drop out of school. In 1986,we found that for every $1 invested ineducation there was a $9 return.

Public policies must also utilize ef-fective data bases and research. We mustensure that we ask the right questions whenwe research the dropout issue, focusing onwhat schools must do to tap the inherentstrengths oftheir minority students and fami-lies, and not on what their students andfamilies lack and must do to "fit into" theschools.

For example in 1994, the U.S. Gen-eral Accounting Office (GAO) submitted a

report on its audit of Hispanic dropouts.However, the study, Hispanics' Schooling:Risk Factors for Dropping Out and Barri-ers to Resuming Education, contributedlittleinformation on Hispanic dropouts, containeda number of inconsistencies, and even pro-vided erroneous information and conclu-sions about this pressing educational prob-lem. Limitations of the study included thefollowing:

It was conducted using census data ex-clusively, even though there are otherextensive studies that could have beenincorporated into the report. A studyconducted solely on census data does notprovide any information about the levelof performance at the time the studentdropped out. Census data also providevery few insights into the nature of theproblem and its remediation.It used a definition of a "dropout" thatconsidered the completion of a GeneralEducation Development (GED) programas the equivalent to high school gradua-tion. It even went a step further andeliminated as defined dropouts formerstudents who were studying for a GEDcertificate.It included an overabundance of analysisof foreign born dropouts, thus adding tothe popular, but misguided, scapegoatingof immigrant students.It was careless in various types of inclu-sion and exclusion.It drew erroneous conclusions not sup-ported by GAO data or any other study.It was very defensive of U.S. schools,attributing dropouts to various presumedcharacteristics of the Hispanic popula-tion rather than to poor performance byschools.

Strategies must incorporate waysof increasing the capacity of schools, fam-ily and community, and students to pro-duce results. Special attention must be givento the following to build capacity:

The formulation and implementation ofspecialized prevention and recovery ap-proaches.Professional development activities andfollow-up. Such activities must be tar-geted and include both in-service andpre-service. Professional developmentshould not only expand knowledge, butalso cause educators to view children indifferent ways. Follow-up should includebuilt-in mechanisms for support and re-inforcement.Meaningful community and family par-

Hispanic Dropouts - continued on page 8

August 1997 Ell IDRA Newsletter

6

REFLECTIONS

EQUAL ACCESS: MASK OF DISCRIMINATION

It is the first day of the 1997-1998 school year in the PickOne Independent School District in Somewhere, Texas. A monolingualEnglish speaking teacher with 18 years of experience is assigned to teach a multi-ethnic class of 24 children in the third grade of the LaEsperanza Elementary School. The teacher, Mrs. Educator, has a professional elementary certificate with a specialization in reading.

The class consists of 14 Hispanic, two African-American and three Asian-American students. The remaining five students are Anglo,or White, as coded in the state's required reporting system. Since the teacher was transferred from another campus within the same schooldistrict for this school year, there has been little opportunity for her to review the academic and linguistic characteristics of her students.

As Mrs. Educator settles the class for structured learning, she quickly peruses each enrollment card. She notices rubber-stampedlabels on each card. Silently, amidst the excitement and noise of a new school year, she reads one card, "regular," then another, "limited-English-proficient/exempt" and "Level IV Spanish/Level I English/bilingual," The third card reads "low socio-economic status/accelerated institute." Other cards read "special education/limited-English-proficient" "attention deficit disorder," "non-LEP/schoollunch/accelerated instruction," "ESL-Level III" and then another "regular."

Yes, it is the first day of school and already Mrs. Educator is frustrated. "What in the world are all the labels for?" she ponders.She finally decides: "My job is to teach these youngsters to meet the district, state and national goals. I can't discriminate. I have

to teach all of them to read. Someone else needs to work with them on any other problems they have."The bell rings. Mrs. Educator adjusts to her teaching mode, but first checks the attendance roll. "Jennifer," "Pitra" for Petra, "Wakin"

for Joaquin, "Jimmy" for Jaime, "Jacob" and so on. Most of the children raise their hands when told by other children to do so. "Okay,children," Mrs. Educator continues, "Take out your readers and turn to Chapter One. Some of you will be working on these wonderfulcomputers, but I haven't gotten the list yet. So, just listen to the other children who will be reading for us."

The first day of school for many of these children will be no different from other school days to follow inappropriate, insensitiveand incomprehensible.

This scenario is fictitious, but the events profiled are very real. They occur in classrooms with children of diverse backgrounds andspecial needs throughout Texas and the United States everyday. This scenario focuses on sincere attempts made by eduCators and schoolsystems to literally give every child an equal opportunity by treating each child alike. These practices perpetuate the myth of equalopportunity. Day in and day out, children of diverse backgrounds are pushed into the U.S. mold for education, either by designorunintentionally. This is discriminatory by all accounts because children with special needs are far removed, or segregated, from appropriateand responsive services that can be provided by specially trained staff.

These days, "alternative education" is being heralded as the panacea to the challenges that these special populations pose. Theconcept of alternative education does have merit if it is instituted as an alternative method to educating students, and not as an alternativeholding tank for students considered to be at-risk. For decades, a high percentage of minority children have been dumped in "specialeducation" classes even though they do not have learning disabilities or handicapping conditions.

We must focus on equal benefits for every child and not equal access. We must dispel the erroneous concept of "compensatoryeducation" and compensate for what the education system hasnot provided up until now. Special programs for students withspecial needs should be understood and implemented asenhancements for the regular program offerings. Above all,we must eradicate the pervasive notion that children come toschools with problems. They come to our schools with specialneeds that warrant special attention. Educational deprivationis not a characteristic of any segment of our pluralistic society.It is a by-product of an educational system that fails torecognize the needs of those to be served.

There are more than 1 million students with specialneeds in Texas public schools. Historically and invariably,these students are, or will become, the staggering statistics wecontinue to read about: academic failures, at-risk youth, truants,hard cores and dropouts. Let us hope that non-traditionalapproaches used to impact these students with excellence andequity will become a salient feature of our educational systembefore we reach the 21st century... just around the corner.

Oscar M. Cardenas has served the field of education for more than threedecades. He is a former manager in the U.S. Office of Education andcurrently is with the Texas Education Agency (TEA). His opinions statedabove do not necessarily reflect the opinions of TEA.

& COMMENTARY

SC.1400L. C-1401C.E.

Reprinted with permission from the artist, Kirk Anderson.

August 1997 6 IDRA Newsletter

7

VISIT IDRA ON THE INTERNET!

The IDRA is pleased to announce its new World Wide Web site:

http://www.idra.org

Here you'll fmd IDRA resources, IDRA Newsletter articles, research results, statistics,

fact sheets, policy alerts, conference information and a convenient directory of links to other sites.Jump onto your favorite browser and check us out!

Netscoper. Welcome to the WWII

'iSaligEEEMtIhttp://wwv.fdratari/

Welcome to the Intercultural Development Research Association!

o°v4040.

oeve,00

IDRA

.4.4oen AssoCs'

Creating felmols That Work For An C1dddren

IDRA b en independent, non-wilt ongadzebon taeadvocates the right of every child to e ovally educed= Permom then 20 yew, IDRA ass worked tor excellence andequity in education to Uses tad moss the Unied Mmes.IDRA conducts osseenh end development nibbles; cremes,inhuman end Monti:Mos innovates education prodmms;cal movkles lecher, edministantr, end penal ttekdag endinimical 11:121ZO).

Sewall the wobsite

About IDRA

Special Alerts

Services

Research Results

IDRA Newsletter

Publications & Resources

Education Quotes

Class Notes

IDRA Who's Who

Resource Links

Request Information

Intradmod Devebpmem Research Association5535 (ellethen Road, fhb) San Antonio, Toms W228-1150Phone: (210) 60441180 I Fey (210) 684-5389

11-Mat Christie Goodman, Commuokadons Meaner.

11116, busedrid Dewlopaas litermak amookidos

4Cold

IDRA's mission and areas of focus

Policy updates and upcomingevents

Professional development,programs and materialsdevelopment, research andevaluation, and policy andleadership services

Collaborative programs that workfor all children, including theSTAR Center, DesegregationAssistance Center South CentralCollaborative, and the Coca-ColaValued Youth Program

Latest dropout statistics, a 10-yearperspective on literacy and more

Text of the latest 10 issues of theIDRA Newsletter, indices forprevious years

Descriptions of materials and howto order them

Paradigmatic views of reality

Separating fact from fiction abouteducation

Brief staff biographies, sendE-mail to a staff member

Your launching point

Search button to find what youwant in IDRA's web page

BEST COPY AVAILABLEAugust 1997 IDRA Newsletter

8

UPCOMING EVENTS

Texas Association forBilingual Tducation

26th Annual Conference

Oct Ober-22-25, 1997Houston, Texas

For more information,call 1-800-822-3930.

Hispanic Dropouts - continued from page 5

ticipation. An example is IDRA' s modelfor meaningful participation that includesfour levels: parents as teachers, parentsas resources, parents as decision makersand parents as leaders. It recognizes therole the larger community plays in edu-cation. It requires schools to change theirways of operating that exclude parentsfor efficiency's sake into ways that wel-come family and community members aspartners.Administrative roles and responsibili-ties as these relate to dropout preventionand recovery strategies.

Strategies must provide equity inresources. Providing children with facili-ties that are conducive to learning is animportant part of their intellectual develop-ment, whether that be at the primary orsecondary levels. The continued decline ofclassroom and building conditions and theneed for increased construction are expectedto continue to burden U.S. school districtsinto the next century. As we look at the newconstruction and renovation activities oc-curring nationally, it will be important for usto be vigilant in tracking the concentrationsof minority pupils to avoid resegregationand to ensure that all students benefit fromthese efforts. We must also do this withother school resources. We must make ourschools equitable and excellent and acces-sible to all of our children, and we must alignresources with needs.

Strategies must include mechanismsthat hold the schools accountable for re-sults. Such mechanisms include standard-ized definitions and data collection, system-atic approaches for evaluating and reportingdropout prevention and recovery efforts,and ways to change strategies that are found

to be ineffective.Strategies must allow for diffusion

of successful approaches and the devel-opment of action networks. Effective in-novations die for the lack of dissemination,diffusion and replication. To have signifi-cant effects, dropout initiatives must incor-porate provisions for information dissemi-nation and for networking of persons in-volved in dropout-related activities. Infor-mation diffusion efforts must capitalize onthe most effective existing private and pub-lic sector networks at local, state, regionaland national levels.

As we look at what we must do tochange the path we have created for ourchildren, we must have greater accountabil-ity, accessibility and alignment. We mustaccept that we are accountable for all of ourchildren and youth, particularly those whosecries are not being heard.

We must stop blaming our children ortheir families for our failures.

IDRA believes that all students arevaluable; none is expendable. Our pro-gram, the Coca-Cola Valued Youth Pro-gram, is one manifestation of adults con-necting with youths considered potentialdropouts in a way that is a testament tostudents' strengths and what they can con-tribute to their peers, their schools, theirfamilies and their communities.

We must not underestimate the ef-fects of such a connection or such a beliefand valuing model: more that 98 percent ofValued Youth participants, most of themHispanic, stay in school. During the firstfour years of the program in the South SanAntonio Independent School District, all ofthe Valued Youth students, almost all ofthem Hispanic, graduated from high school.During the last 12 years, the Coca-ColaValued Youth Program has made a visibledifference in the lives of more than 33,000children, families and educators.

When adults see that students whothey thought would drop out of school are,when given the opportunity, inspirationsand positive leaders to their peers, moti-vated learners to their teachers, sources ofpride to their parents and contributors totheir communities, a transformation occurs.They begin to see what is possible for allchildren. They begin to question their be-liefs about students who may look differentfrom them or speak another language. Andultimately, they change and make connec-tions with other caring adults, and as a resultschools change.

There are other efforts across the coun-

try that are working and are keeping youngpeople in school. Many more are needed ifwe are going to attain the second educa-tional goal established by the National Edu-cation Goals Panel: "By the year 2000, thehigh school graduation rate will increase toat least 90 percent." To reach this goal, weneed consistent use of resources, and weneed good public policy. We can addressthe leak in the pipeline so that more His-panic students can move from elementaryand secondary school to excel in highereducation.

ResourcesCardenas, Jose A. "Hispanic Dropouts: Report by

General Accounting Office Has Problems," IDRANewsletter (San Antonio, Texas: InterculturalDevelopment Research Association, October1994).

Cardenas, Jose A., Maria Robledo Montecel and JosieSupik. Texas School Dropout Survey Project: ASummary of Findings (San Antonio, Texas: Inter-cultural Development Research Association, 1986).

Cardenas, Jose A., Marfa Robledo Montecel, JosieSupik and Richard J. Harris. "The Coca-ColaValued Youth Program: Dropout Prevention Strat-egies for At-Risk Students," Texas Researcher(Winter 1992).

Johnson, Roy. "Up or Down: The Dropout Dilemma inTexas," IDRA Newsletter (San Antonio, Texas:Intercultural Development Research Association,October 1996).

National Center for Education Statistics. DropoutRates in the United States (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Education, 1995).

President's Advisory Commission on EducationalExcellence for Hispanic Americans. Our Nationon the Fault Line: Hispanic American Education(Washington, D.C.: White House Initiative onEducational Excellence for Hispanic Americans,September 1996).

Ramirez, David and Maria Robledo Montecel. "TheEconomic Impact of the Dropout Problem," IDRANewsletter (San Antonio, Texas: InterculturalDevelopment Research Association, April 1987).

Robledo Montecel, Maria. "The Prevention and Re-covery of Dropouts: An Action Agenda," IDRANewsletter (San Antonio, Texas: InterculturalDevelopment Research Association, April 1986).

Robledo Montecel, Maria. "School Finance InequitiesMean Schools Are Not Ready to Teach," IDRANewsletter (San Antonio, Texas: InterculturalDevelopment Research Association, October1996).

Supik, Josie. "Equity and Accountability Needed toReduce Dropout Rates: Testimony Before thePresident's Advisory Commission on EducationalExcellence for Hispanic Americans," IDRA News-letter (San Antonio, Texas: Intercultural Develop-ment Research Association, October 1996).

U.S. Census Bureau. "Race and Hispanic Origin,"1990 Census Profile (Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Commerce, 1991).

U.S. Census Bureau. School Enrollment Social andEconomic Characteristics of Students: October1995 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofCommerce, May 1997).

Dr. Maria Robledo Montecel is the executivedirector of IDRA. Comments and questions maybe sent to her via E-mail at idra@idra.org.

August 1997

BEST COPY AVAILABLE8 IDRA Newsletter

9

POLICIES AFFECTING BILINGUAL-EDUCATION AND ESL. PROGRAMS

In the past 30 years there have beenmany influences affecting bilingualeducation and English as a second language(ESL). The strongest of these are legalmandates enacted by Congress, the statelegislature and the courts. There are otherpolicies for implementing the "spirit of thelaw" through programs outlined in Chapter89 of the Texas Administrative Code (19TAC), Subchapter BB Commissioner'sRules and Related Rules of the State Boardof Education (SBOE). These are state plansfor educating limited-English-proficient(LEP) students.

One might often find a leap in realitybetween these well-developed plans andactual instructional programs in schools,not unlike a person with a well-developedgrocery list in the coat pocket yet a barecupboard at home. Without the laws, courtorders and rules to describe minimumrequirements, however, there would be manyinconsistencies from school to school.

These policies influence what istaught, how it is taught, how personnel aretrained and licensed, how students are tested,what classroom materials are used, and howschools affect the prosperity of the state andcountry. Currently, the official descriptionsof what is taught for required and enrichmentcourses are being updated by task forces ofeducators representing various areas of thestate. The updated standards are the TexasEssential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS).

At the State Board of Educationmeeting in April, a task force presented theproposed TEKS for Spanish language artsand ESL for kindergarten through 12th grade,which are included in state legislationregarding required curriculum (19 TACChapter 128). The proposal was amodification of the TEKS for Englishlanguage arts and reading that had been filedduring a previous meeting of the board.

The task force members includedmaster teachers, representatives from theIntercultural Development ResearchAssociation (IDRA), representatives fromuniversities with certification programs andother educators. They emphasized the factthat LEP students go through stages oflanguage acquisition that are not related tothe students' intellectual capabilities northeir abilities to use higher-order thinkingskills. They also stated that their proposedTEKS are not "watered down" versions of

the all-English curriculum.In fact, the proposal adds materials on

culture and the transferring of academicskills from the students' first language toEnglish. The proposal made constantreferences to current theory, research andpractices. These are required courses forLEP students that assist their academicachievement. One would wish that TEKSfor pre-kindergarten grades would have beenincluded to provide guidance to teachersassigned to summer school programs inaccordance with 19 TAC Section 89.1250since these are mandated for LEP childrenunder by the Texas Education Code.

Colleges, universities and regionaleducation service centers will complementthe TEKS with pre-service and in-servicestaff training. When textbook publishersrespond to proclamations by the State Boardof Education with textbook bids, they, toobecome part of the instructional team byproviding guidance on pedagogy in teacherguides. This "how to" assistance will changeas educational research evolves and currentinformation is confirmed on the importantrelationship oflinguistically, affectively andcognitively appropriate components.

Another important policy areainvolves the testing of LEP students. Thistesting may be conducted for variouspurposes. Initially, students are tested todetermine whether or not they should beassigned to bilingual education or ESLinstruction. LEP students represent morethan 100 home languages. Bilingualeducation is available for Spanish speakersand speakers of a few other languages.

Some students belong to smaller homelanguage groups such as Kurds, Bosniansand Hindus. These students are sometimesassigned to the ESL program when certifiedteachers with knowledge of the student'shome language are hard to find. At aminimum, ESL is required in districts forgroups of less than 20 students per grade.

However, ESL instruction alone isnot an alternative for bilingual education.Current research describes the undisputedadvantages of bilingual education for anystudent. Perhaps we will see a future wherefull bilingual programs for students of alllanguage groups are available in this state.

Other informal testing, such asportfolio assessment, may be conducted forformative evaluation as instruction

progresses. Summative evaluation is the stateassessment required for graduation in Texasand graduation upon completion of therequired secondary curriculum. The TEKStask forces were particularly sensitive to theneed to provide secondary programs thathelp meet graduation and college entrancerequirements.

Currently, all LEP students must takean appropriate state annual assessment. Thismay consist of the Texas Assessment ofAcademic Skills (TAAS) in English or inSpanish or, if exempted, an alternativeassessment. These students cannot beexempted from state assessments for morethan three years.

Bilingual education and ESL programsprotect students' constitutional rights andincrease academic achievement. Addition-ally, language learning has a significantimpact upon the Texas economy. In March1997, the Texas Department of Commercereported a record $74.2 billion in exportsfrom Texas to Mexico in 1996. This hasincreased by more than 25 percent from1995. Exports include electronic equipment,industrial machinery and computer equip-ment, chemicals, transportation equipment,food, petroleum refining and related prod-ucts, scientific instruments, and other goodsand services. The Texas Comptroller ofPublic Accounts identified Brazil, Argen-tina and Mexico as the major importers ofTexas goods. Other mushrooming marketsmay be found in China, Taiwan. South Ko-rea, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore andthe Philippines.

Language and marketing are inextri-cably linked. The importance of languageskills to Texas' success in the global economyought not to be taken for granted.

Dr. Elisa de Leon Gutierrez is theformer directorfor the bilingual education division of the TexasEducation Agency (TEA). Currently. she servesas a consultant for the Arkansas Department ofEducation where she has written a state plan forchildren of limited English proficiency.

COMING UP!In September,

the IDRA Newsletterfocuses on parent, family

and community involvement.

August 1997 "IDRA Newsletter10

Taws Legislature - continued from page 1

interest groups, the education committeeadopted its own proposal in mid-May.

The Senate plan was a much moremodest tax reform proposal, but it containedschool finance reform provisions compa-rable to those contained in the House plan.The Senate plan called for new taxes bybroadening the state franchise tax to includemore service sectors, including limited part-nerships, and by broadening the state salestax base by including more goods and ser-vices. It called for an increase in state edu-cation funding =the following:

Dollar-per-dollar reimbursement of anystate-mandated reductions in local prop-erty taxes.Increase in the levels of guaranteed yield.

Provision of a new funding tier to helplocal districts pay for facilities.Extension of hold harmless clauses al-lowing the state's wealthiest school dis-tricts to continue to spend at their 1992-93 revenue per pupil levels.

The plan also called for property taxrelief through increases in state-mandatedhomestead exemptions on residential prop-erty and requirements that local school dis-tricts reduce their local property taxes by anamount equal to any increases in state fund-ing after adjustments for enrollment.

Although the Senate proposal did notinclude the state-level business propertytax, it did provide for

expanding the franchise tax to non-cor-porate businesses in Texas by adding

STAR CENTER AT IDRA PRESENTSEXCELLENCE AND EQUITY THROUGH TECHNOLOGY NETWORK (EETNET)

This three-day institute is designed to assist Texas schools with Title I schoolwideprograms and to increase achievement for all students through innovative instructionthat is technology-enhanced. Participants will include teams of campus and districtadministrators, teachers, parents and community members.

San Antonio area (ESC Region 20) August 28-29

Valley area (Valley Center for Professional Development and Technology,University of Texas at Pan American) September 11-12

Dallas-Ft. Worth area (dates TBA)

Activities:* On-line needs assessment to provide immediate electronic feedback to each

campus team. Hands-on introductions to cutting-edge instructional technologies (content

area software, electronic portfolios, World Wide Web resources)Writing and evaluating campus technology plansFinding creative resources and funding

* Individual consultations with experts in the areas of instructional technologyand school- reform

* Opportunity to engage in long-range technology planning supported by anetwork of colleagues and technical assistance providers

To be eligible each school must:Have Title I schoolwide programsBe representative of the diversity of the regionProvide evidence of a pro-active interest in using technology to improveinstructionExpress a commitment to a long-term pursuit of excellence and equity throughtechnology

For more information about the institute. contact: Dr. Chris Green, STAR Center at IDRA (210/684-8180: cgreenEvidra.org). For more information about applications, contact: Leticia Lopez-de la Garza.

STAR Center at IDRA (210/684-8180; llopez@idra.orv. Space is limited.

The STAR Center is the comprehensive regional assistance center funded by the U.S. Department ofEducation to serve Texas. It is a collaboration of the Intercultural Development Research Association(IDRA), RMC Research Corporation and the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin.For information about STAR Center services, call 1-888-FYI-STAR.

general partnerships, limited pauner-ships, business trusts and professionalassociations;adding a limited expansion of the salestax;increasing taxes on alcohol and tobaccoproducts;continuing the motor carrier tax that wasscheduled for repeal in September 1997;increasing the state share of lottery rev-enues; andcreating new taxes on certain coin-oper-ated and cash-dispensing machines.

The differences in revenue levels be-tween the House and Senate plans, in turn,created significant differences in their ex-tent of new state education funding andproperty tax "relief' levels.

Major Differences Betweenthe House and Senate Proposals

The major differences between theHouse and Senate packages involved theirtax package provisions and the school fi-nance formulas. Many observers anticipatedthat the chambers could work out their dif-ferences concerning the school finance por-tions, but the tax proposals, however, wererecognized as posing a serious challenge.

During conference committee delib-erations, the chambers repeatedly clashedon the issue of the House proposed plan fora state-level property tax on businesses.Failure of the chambers to reconcile theirdifferences led to weeks of delays as oneside waited for the other to give in. So, theconference committee designated a subgroupto reconcile the differences in the House andSenate school finance provisions.

Disagreements on tax relief centeredon the manner and extent to which eachchamber proposed to provide for local schoolproperty tax relief. The House plan soughtto remove local business property fromschool tax rolls and to reimburse districtsfor each dollar of revenue it lost by thisaction. It also provided for an increase in thestate-mandated homestead exemption withsimilar reimbursement to local districts forlost tax revenues. The Senate plan did notchange local school district taxation ofbusi-ness property, but it did have a version of anincrease in the state homestead exemption.

Both the House and Senate plans calledfor some significant changes in the stateschool finance structure. The House plancalled for totally eliminating the state recap-ture of revenue from the state's wealthiestschool districts (those that generated more

Texas Legislature - continued on page 11

OGOT PMCIV AR( GAugust 1997 10 1DRA Newsletter! 1

Texas. Legislature - continued from page 10

money than the state had chosen to equal-ize). It also called for changing from thecurrent foundation school program to a two-tier guaranteed yield system, with a newthird tier for new facilities.

Under the House plan, the first tierwould have provided approximately $49.60per each penny of tax effort up to 75 cents.The second tier would have allowed dis-tricts to levy an additional 10 cents to coverthe cost for funding existing programs or toenrich the basic program. Enrichment guar-anteed yield would be equalized up to $9 perpenny of tax effort. (That is, the state wouldprovide revenue for each district whoselocal tax base yielded less than the guaran-teed level of $9 per penny of tax effort.)

A new subportion of the second tierwould allow districts to tax up to 10 cents inorder to cover the cost of existing facilities.The total tax effort equalized for a combina-tion ofenrichment of existing facilities, how-ever, would not exceed 10 cents. The thirdtier in the House plan called for the creationof a new mechanism for state participationin the funding of new facilities. This tierwould provide guaranteed yield monies toschool districts so that each district wouldacquire $36.40 for each cent of new debtservice tax effort for up to 50 cents of localtax effort.

Under the Senate proposal, the struc-ture of the state funding system was modi-fied, calling for the following:

Increasing the state's "equalized wealthlevel" (the maximum tax wealth that lo-cal districts are allowed to retain) fromthe existing $280,000 per weighted aver-age daily attendance to $330,000 perweighted average daily attendance inorder to reduce the number of local schooldistricts subjected to the state recaptureprovisions.Increasing the second tier guaranteedyield portion of the system from $21 percent of tax effort to $29.60.Creating a new third tier of funding toprovide guaranteed yield monies to dis-tricts to help cover the cost of new facili-ties and setting the guaranteed yield levelat $33 per average daily attendance.

What Was Finally AdoptedThe media in Texas provided exten-

sive coverage of the House-Senate conflictsover the proposed tax package and reportedthat the failure ofthe tax measure was fueledin part by the actions of many businesslobbyists who fought to have certain busi-

A LEGISLATURE COMMITTED

TO EQUITY WOULD HAVE

ATTEMPTED TO REDUCE THE

CURRENT LEVEL OF INEQUALITY.

nesses left off proposed tax measures or, atleast, to have them be given exemptions orother dispensations that would reduce theirstate tax liabilities.

In the face of fierce opposition frommany facets of the business sector (specifi-cally those not currently subjected to statefranchise or sales taxes), the property taxrelief school funding plan as proposed byeither chamber went down in bitter defeat.

In the waning days of the session,legislators attempted to "deliver" on theproperty tax relief promised by some of thestate's political leadership (primarily thegovernor). So, they adopted a proposal thatturned out to be a mere shadow of thesubstantive reforms that were trumpeted atthe beginning of the session. The final prop-erty tax school finance plan as adopted bythe legislature calls for the following:

Increasing the state-mandated homesteadexemption (that portion of a homestead's[residence's] market value that may beexcluded from local property taxes) fromthe current $5,000 to $15,000. This por-tion requires passage of an accompany-ing state constitutional amendment byvoters in a forthcoming election.Increasing the state share of lottery rev-enues and dedicating lottery monies tothe foundation school fund that is used tofund public education.Continuing the current funding systemthat includes a Tier 1 basic programrequiring a minimum local tax effort of86 cents and a Tier 2 guaranteed yieldcomponent.Adding a facilities funding level (Tier 3)that will provide guaranteed yield rev-enue to help districts pay for the costsrelated to new local school facilities.

A Final Analysis A Lost OpportunityIn early June, the headline of Texas

Education News Reports reported, "PublicEducation Spending to Increase by $1.7Billion in New Biennium" (1997). While itis true that the state portion of public schoolfunding will increase by that amount, localschool districts will not see any substantialincrease in the level of total funding avail-

able. This sad reality is the result of state-mandated cutbacks in local revenues(through reductions in local property taxrates) in amounts equal to any increases instate revenues received by districts to offsetthe cost of the new state-mandated increasesin homestead exemptions. So while localproperty taxpayers will see an average re-duction in local tax bills of approximately$140, local schools are left watching a $1billion opportunity to improve the quality ofschools fly away on the wings of "propertytax relief."

This fiasco experienced by the legis-lature serves as a reminder of the complex-ity of a property tax structure that is totallyintertwined with the state school fundingscheme. While not opposed to tax relief,many local school officials quietly opposedthe legislature's attempt to remove localbusinesses from the tax rolls, fearing thattheir local communities would never see thestate business tax revenue that had beentouted to replace the local school district'staxation of that same property.

Targeting $1 billion of surplus rev-enue on tax relief proposals through home-stead exemptions also creates a contingentliability to forthcoming legislative sessions.BecauSe the homestead exemptions willbecome permanent if adopted by the voters,legislators in future sessions can only hopethat revenue growth provides the additionalmoney needed to cover those exemptions.Otherwise, they face the prospect of creat-ing a $1 billion tax increase to maintaincurrent levels of state services.

Although the legislature provided avery modest increase in the state minimumsalary requirements for teachers, it failed toupgrade teacher salaries to compensationlevels befitting the profession. Other areasremain under funded as well, such as theeducation of students with differing charac-teristics, including students from low-in-come households, students with limited pro-ficiency in English, students who are giftedand talented, and students with special edu-cation needs.

Some might argue that increasing thelevel of education funding does not guaran-tee improved outcomes for students, but weknow that we are unlikely to see improve-ment without some increased state invest-ment in support of equalized public educa-tion. At the time of the last Edgewood rul-ing, the state acknowledged that even underits best case projections, the existing fund-ing system would provide for continuation

Texas Legislature - continued on page 12

August 1997 11 IDRA Netter

PRIVATE SCHOOL VOUCHERS DEBATED

Extremely concerned about proposals by some legislators to institute a privateschool voucher program in Texas, IDRA expressed its concern by, among otherthings, directing a letter to legislators. Below is an excerpt of that letter.

For more than 24 years we have been a primary advocate for equalizing publicschool funding, early childhood education, bilingual education and other programsthat would benefit low-income and minority children in our public schools. We findit disturbing that those pushing for a "voucher" program, supposedly to benefit poorchildren, are the same people who have opposed every positive program put forwardto equalize educational opportunity.

What is worse, those same economically disadvantaged students are beingtouted by voucher proponents as the reason Texas' public education system has"failed." At the same time, proponents claim that it is those same students who willbe the primary beneficiaries of a system that would defund public schools.

Public education in Texas is already under funded. Vouchers would simplymean that the children in public schools with the fewest resources will be left behindin public schools that are even poorer and more inadequate. These same childrenstudents with special needs, minorities, low-income children, disabled students andstudents who do not speak English are truly unlikely candidates for private schoolsthat use their own criteria for selection.

Whether it is called "choice," "parental choice," "free schools," "vouchers"or whatever euphemisms become fashionable, use of public funds for privateeducation is prohibited by many state constitutions. The framers of those documentsintended for the state to exercise its obligation to educate the citizenry by providingpublic, free schools to all children.

If the public schools need improvement and we at IDRA agree that they dothen let us do that. Let us not shut down the educational opportunities we fought

so hard to improve.

Texas Legislature - continued from page 11

ofa $600 gap in spending per pupil ($24,000per class of 20) between the state's richestand poorest school districts. A legislaturecommitted to equity would have attemptedto reduce that level of inequality.

On the other hand, things may havebeen worse if certain proposals entertainedduring the last session had become law. Ifopponents of state recapture had succeededin eliminating that equalizing feature fromexisting law and no mechanism for offset-ting that action had been adopted, the levelof equity in the state school funding systemmight have declined. In the same vein,disequalizing proposals, such as eliminat-ing pupil funding weights that generate ex-tra state monies for students with specialneeds, were also rejected.

Writing in 1994, Dr. Jose A. Cardenas,IDRA director emeritus, observed that areview of the "continuing saga of Texasschool finance reform provides half a dozenlessons that could help in addressing... futureefforts in the financing of Texas publicschools."

One of the lessons he cites is:

Failure to resolve the problem can beattributed to the failure of the legislatureto bite the bullet and do what decency,justice, common sense and the best inter-ests of the state demand be done(Cardenas, 1997).

Despite the efforts ofa small group ofminority and other legislators, the majorityremained unable, or unwilling, to continuethe funding reform efforts begun in 1993with the passage of Senate Bill 7, which wasthe last state response to the series ofEdgewood challenges.

The most significant positive devel-opment for public school education in thissession may turn out to be the creation of afacilities funding tier to help finance newconstruction. While recognizing it was mod-estly funded (thus, not all school districts inthe state will benefit), the plan to have thestate assume part of the cost is an action thatwe at IDRA have advocated since IDRA' sinception in 1973. Let us hope it does nottake the Texas Legislature 24 years to comeup with a substantial improvement to thecurrent funding plan. While being "moreequitable" than many of its predecessors,

the funding system still has plenty of momfor improvement.Public Funding for Private Schoolsand Charter Schools

Early in this Texas legislative session,a group of proponents, who support thedevelopment of alternatives to conventionalpublic schools, announced their intention topush for policy changes that would increasethe numbers of charter schools allowed tooperate in the state of Texas. In 1995, thelegislature adopted a policy allowing for thecreation of 20 state-approved charterschools. Although numerous public schooladvocates expressed concern with the pro-posed charters, their initial fears were al-layed by the inclusion of flexible studentadmissions procedures and accountabilityrequirements based on student outcomes.

Despite the absence of convincingdata on whether or not the 20 existing char-ter schools were effective, legislators sup-ported the expansion to 100 charter schools.They did so by granting the authority toapprove 100 open enrollment charter schoolsspecifically created to serve students whoare eligible for public education grants. Inaddition, legislators authorized the creationand funding of additional charter schools inwhich 75 percent of the prospective stu-dents are considered at risk of dropping out.

These proposals sought to providealternative educational options for studentsattending low performing schools and were,in part, an outgrowth of public school refus-als to accept students who seek to transfer toother non-district schools under legislationadopted in 1995. According to data com-piled by the Texas Education Agency, onlya handful of students who applied for trans-fers out of low performing campuses wereaccepted by the schools to which they ap-plied, with most schools citing a number ofexcuses for refusing their admission.

Eligibility for public education grantfunding was also modified by legislators,with students deemed eligible for participa-tion if the campus had been designated aslow performing for two consecutive years(rather than the three-year stipulation inprevious legislation). Districts eligible forpublic education grant funding would beallocated an additional weight of 10 cents,generating an average of $267 per pupil andthus increasing the funds that would betransferred to the charter school receivingpublic education grant students.

Some disturbing public policy ques-tions are presented by this merging of the

Texas Legislature - continued on page 13

August 1997PIR1 P "mt. " voi VV 1.

12 IDRA Newsletter 1 3

Texas,Legislature continued from page 12

public education grant concept of providingstudents with alternatives to attending lowperforming schools with the need to moreeffectively serve students who are at risk ofdropping out of school. The first and mostobvious concern is the rush to expand Texascharter schools in the absence of data thatthe existing charter schools are meetingeither their own objectives or the perfor-mance outcomes of regular public schools.

A second concern surrounds the cre-ation of specialized charter schools to serveat-risk students and those who may havealready dropped out. Does the creation ofcharter schools for at-risk students absolveregular public schools from serving their at-risk students? Will these at-risk charterschools be seen as the logical referral placefor schools reluctant to adapt to address theneeds of changing student populations?

While some proponents may have nosuch intentions, the policy is not currentlycrafted in ways that will protect againststudents being tracked into alternatives thatabsolve sending-schools from adequatelyaddressing the needs of all pupils, includingthose identified as at-risk of dropping out ofschool. Other efforts by some charter schoolproponents to liberalize the eligibility pro-visions and dilute the equal student accessand accountability provisions were thwarted.

Attempts by some state legislators tocreate a Texas school voucher plan thatwould use state funding to finance publiceducation were defeated by a narrow marginin the latter days of the session (see box onPage 12). According to the Legislative Study

Group (LSG) a loose coalition of moder-ates in the House of Representativesvoucher proponents succeeded in addingvoucher language to the plan through anamendment to the public education 'grantbill described above (1997). However, asubsequent amendment that would have pro-hibited private schools from discriminatingagainst public school students was adoptedbut found unacceptable to the Texas Con-servative Coalition oflegislators (which wasthe chief proponent for the voucher plan).Thus, the whole voucher amendment waswithdrawn.

Though rejected in this session, legis-lative observers noted that the pro-vouchereffort demonstrated creativity and persis-tence as it attempted to move its agenda. Areturn of the same factions in the 1999Texas session is again anticipated.

Immigrant EducationWith the scrutiny and criticism that

bilingual education programs have been re-ceiving in the past couple of years in somecircles, it is not surprising that Texas policy-makers would take a second look at educa-tional policies set forth to transition immi-grant children into the classroom, as otherpublic policy measures seek to remove themand their families from the country.

Interestingly, in developing publicpolicy, many of the same groups who advo-cate legislation of such teaching methods asEnglish language immersion (although ithas been proven ineffective) are the samepeople who are simultaneously vigorouslydefending the notion of local control.

To date, the state of Texas has beenable to fend off any attempts to ostracizeimmigrants in the area of education, prima-rily because Gov. Bush has spoken out aboutthe fact that the economic viability of thestate, especially in relation to trade, is con-tingent upon a population that is literate andadequately educated. In Texas, neither ma-jor political party made any serious effortsto mandate the exclusion of immigrant chil-dren from the classroom.

A strong concern, though, is the per-sistent threat of exclusionary policies beingimplemented, ifnot under the current guber-natorial administration, then under another'sleadership.

Fueled by the anti-immigrant senti-ments set ablaze by California's previousinitiatives, a third initiative, the EnglishLanguage Education for Immigrant Chil-dren (Initiative Number 743), would elimi-nate bilingual education in public schoolsand instead implement a system of Englishlanguage immersion to teach this country'sdominant language to LEP students "as rap-idly and effectively as possible." Theinitiative's authors denounce the languageacquisition programs as "wasting financialresources on costly experimental programswhose failure over the past two decades isdemonstrated by the high number of drop-outs and low literacy levels of many immi-grant children" (Unz, 1997).

National leaders took a cue from theCalifornia's regressive measures and re-acted to the ethnic tensions by introducingseveral bills to declare English the official

Texas Legislature - continued on page 14

Questions and Answers aboutEven after 26 years of federal funding for bilin-gual education, questions continue to surfaceabout this educational program. Questions andAnswers about Bilingual Education identifiesthe 23 most frequently asked questions and pro-vides briefbut complete answers to clarify miscon-ceptions and misunderstandings held by non-educatorssuch as parents, community board members and schoolboard members regarding bilingual education and its goals.It is also a useful resource for educators, such as principals andassistant superintendents, who may not have had formal trainingin bilingual education.

SIO (ISBN 1-878550-48-9; 32 pages)Published by the Intercultural Development Research Association.A truly bilingual publication; Questions and Answers is printed in bothEnglish and Spanish. Price includes shipping and handling. Discountsavailable for large orders.

Bilingual Educationby Dr. Alicia Salinas Sosa

The book is divided into four easy to follow sections:program questions,

rationale questions,implementation questions,

evaluation questions.

This publication is designed to clarify thebenefits to be derived from a quality bilin-gual education program and to empowerthe reader to assist other educators and

members of the community.

To order, send check or purchase order to: Intercultural DevelopmentResearch Association. 5835 Callaghan Road, Suite 350, San Antonio,Texas 78228-1190; or send purchase order by fax, 210/684-5389. Formore information call 210/684-8180 or E-mail: idra@idra.org.

BEST COPY Anil AR! CAugust 1997 13 IDRA Newsletter

-2 ti

Texas Legislature - continued from page 13

language of the United States. Some billseven proposed eliminating bilingual educa-tion and English as a second language (ESL)and allowing states the option ofnot educat-ing children of undocumented workers. Theattack on bilingual education programs werefounded on misguided claims that they areineffective and costly, and are run by teach-ers with inadequate training.

While proponents of such restrictivemeasures argue that costs involved in edu-cating children "who are not even supposedto be in this country" are unacceptably high,it can indeed be argued that the costs in-volved in creating an uneducated underclasswould exceed the perceived benefits. U.S.public schools are not the motivating forcebehind immigrant families' choice to cometo this country; it is the hope of a promisingeconomic future. It is our duty and functionas a democratic society to provide optimalliving conditions for all of our contributingmembers, including its immigrants.

Access to Higher EducationWhen the Fifth Circuit Court of Ap-

peals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in theHopwood vs. State of Texas case in 1995regarding affirmative action practices at theUniversity of Texas Law School, the deci-sion sent shockwaves to colleges and uni-versities, and in workplaces throughout thecountry. These shockwaves continue to re-verberate today.

Within the three-state jurisdiction ofthe Fifth Circuit Court-encompassing Loui-siana, Mississippi and Texas the rulingapplies only to Texas due to the other states'federal civil rights obligations. In response,several key legislators in Texas introducedbills to either reinstate affirmative actionpractices or to create alternative criteria forcollege admission that would still result indiverse student bodies, including proposalsby Rep. Irma Rangel (D-Kingsville), chairof the Committee of Higher Education, andSen. Gonzalo Barrientos (D-Austin).

State lawmakers were faced with theTexas attorney general's ever-expandinginterpretation of the court's decision that, inhis opinion, denounced the use of race-based criteria for admissions or scholar-ships. Disregarding his role as chief de-

fender of the state, the attorney general,. DanMorales, quickly became a spokesperson infavor of abolishing race-based admissionsprocedures and scholarships. Colleges anduniversities, Morales advised, should in-stead adopt race-neutral policies; otherwise.they would be vulnerable to lawsuits.

Three proposals by Rangel wererelated to the issue of minority access tohigher education. Two of them providedpublic colleges and universities with a safetynet to continue minority recruitment andadmission, but the bills lost their momentum.

One measure would protect collegeadministrators and staff members from legalpersecution if they admit minority studentsas allowed by the attorney general's opinion.Another proposal was to give the green lighton the use of race and ethnicity as aconsideration for admissions or scholarshipawards.

After some changes, Rangel's HB 588was passed. Instead of permitting the use ofrace and ethnicity as a factor in admissions.it would allow schools to accept students if

they are in the top 10 percent of theirTexas Legislature - continued on page 15

HIGHLIGHTS OF RECENT IDRA ACTIVITIESIn April, IDRA worked with 9,173 -.----1--....._teachers, administrators and parentsthrough 117 training and technical ____ _ _

assistance activities and 109 programActivity Snapshot - --sites in 12 states plus the United - _During the last five years-,-,schools in Arkansas have bees experiencing a

Kingdom. Topics included: ..--fa-pid'increasern-die.numbers of students who speak a first language other

Fourth Annual IDRA La

Semana del Nino Early thinEnglish. As.a resul 't; the state found itself with a shortage of qualified,

Childhood Educators' Institutebilingually/certified or English as a secOniirariguage-endorsed teachers.

'Assessment of Limited-English- /_

The Arkansas State Department of Education called on IDICA's

Proficient Studentsi

g Desegregation Assistance Center- South Central Collaborative to assist in

Families United for Education i the preparation of teachers., IDRA provided training in first and second

Implementing a Dual Language\ language acquisition, recognizing culture in the classroom and the federal. .guidelines regarding limited-English-proficient students. Certified teachers

Program N.,are now much more prepared to respond to the growing demands forFirst and Second Language ---__

bilingual instructionirr Arkansas education.Acquisition Processes --,-___-_.....-- .--___-- -- _Participating agencies and school ----__ ...........____ ...._--

districts included: --

0 Dallas ISD, Texas,_ ----.Regularly, IDRA staff provides services to: Services include:

0 Texas Education Service Center public school teachers 0 training and technical assistanceMigrant Directors Forum parents -0 evaluation

0 Rogers Public Schools, Ark. administrators -0 serving as expert witnesses in-0- Friendship ISD, Texas 4 other decision makers in public policy settings and court cases0 Cobre CSD, New Mexico education 0 publishing research and4 El Paso ISD, Texas professional papers, books,4. Laredo United ISD, Texas videos and curricula

For information on IDRA services for your school district or other group, contact IDRA at 210/684-8180.

August 1997 14 IDRA Newsletter

5

Texas Legislature - continued from page 14

graduating class,alternatively, applicants graduated in thetop quarter of their graduating class, orthey meet a set of criteria, which includesthe applicant's bilingual proficiency,socio-economic background, and SATand ACT test scores and whether theapplicant would be the first in his or herfamily to attend college.

This measure received greateracceptance than the other two proposalsbecause of the absence of race or ethnicityas even a remote consideration for access tocollege. While minority students can nolonger be admitted by virtue oftheirethnicity,they can still be recruited by institutions ofhigher education.

Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) intro-duced legislation using several criteria thatwould increase the chances of minoritiesbeing admitted to institutions of higher edu-cation, but without including race as one ofthose factors. A revision was passed to en-sure that scholarships are not provided toincoming students based on their athleticperformance or other abilities.

The impact of the Hopwood decisionand the attorney general's opinion is beingfelt by public institutions of higher learningas they are experiencing a decrease in mi-nority applicants. A survey conducted bythe Texas Higher Education CoordinatingBoard of three university systems Univer-sity ofTexas, Texas A&M and University ofHouston indicates a drop in the number ofapplicants to those institutions of highereducation.

On the federal level, several anti-af-firmative action bills were filed during thecurrent session by legislators including Sen.Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Reps. Brian Bilbray(R-Calif.) and Charles Canady (R-Fla.).While these bills primarily focus on affir-mative action practices in the workplace,their prohibitive nature will undoubtedly setthe tone for national policy on minorityadmissions criteria for higher education.

Bilingual Education andState Language Policy

The issue of measures for bilingualeducation in Texas received some attentionby legislators this session.

The first attempt was by state Rep.Charlie Howard (R-Sugarland) whose billwould have given districts the option ofimplementing an English language immer-sion method of teaching English to limitedEnglish- proficient (LEP) students. Twoother bills were related to the state's weightedsystem offunding programs for special popu-lations, such as gifted and talented pro-grams, compensatory programs and bilin-gual education programs. Freshman Rep.Domingo Garcia (D-Dallas) nobly intro-duced a bill that would have increased theweight allotted for bilingual educationthereby increasing funding for the programs.Meanwhile, Rep. Harold Dutton, Jr. (D-Houston) introduced another measure to doaway with the current weighted system,which could have meant serious de-fundingof programs for special populations.

None ofthe three proposals was passedby the legislature. So bilingual education in

Texas remains intact.In the February 1997 issue of the

IDRA Newsletter, we outlined the educa-tion-related policy issues that would be dealtwith by the state legislature. We also re-stated our beliefthat no issue is more criticalto the well-being of Texas than public edu-cation. The Texas legislature, overall, how-ever did not demonstrate that it had the samepriority. IDRA will continue to monitorstate policy efforts as well as community-led actions to achieve equity and excellencein education for the children of Texas.

ResourcesCardenas, J.A. Texas School Finance Reform:

An IDRA Perspective (San Antonio, Texas:Intercultural Development Research Asso-ciation, 1997).

Cortez, A. "Immigrant Education Policy: WhyAttempt to Fix What's Not Broken?" IDRANewsletter (San Antonio, Texas: Intercul-tural Development Research Association,May 1996).

Legislative Study Group, Progress Report (Aus-tin, Texas: Legislative Study Group, 1997).

Texas Education News Reports, "Public Educa-tion Spending to Increase by $1.7 Billion inNew Biennium" (June 9, 1997).

Texas Higher Education Coordinating BoardSurvey (May 27, 1997).

Unz, Ron. "English Language Education forImmigrant Children" (Initiative Number 743,1997).

Albert Cortez, Ph.D., is the director of the IDRAInstitute for Policy and Leadership. Anna AliciaRomero is an education assistant in the IDRAInstitute for Policy and Leadership. Commentsand questions may be sent to them via E-mail atidra@idra.org.

Sexual Harassment - continued from page 3

where appropriate, informal resolutionbefore moving into formal procedures?Does the grievance procedure providefor impartial investigation that includesfact finding, careful review, due processand opportunity for appeal?Does the grievance procedure include anappropriate remedy based on the severityof the offense and institute correctiveaction where there is a finding ofharassment? (1996).

Currently there is not a law thatrequires schools to provide training on sexualharassment. However, school districts thatare found to have incidents of sexualharassment in their schools are viewed moreharshly by the courts than are those schoolswho have had more extensive staff andstudent training. Thus, it behooves schooldistricts to train everyone from school board

members and superintendents to clericalstaff and custodians.

The IDRA Desegregation AssistanceCenter South Central Collaborative (SCC)provides various services to schools anddistricts for dealing with sexual harassmentin public schools. These services includetraining in sexual harassment policies, cre-ating a non-hostile environment and sexualharassment and the law. The DesegregationAssistance Center SCC also provides as-sistance in selecting materials that are freeof gender bias and in developing policiesand procedures on sexual harassment. Formore information, contact Bradley Scott,director of the Desegregation AssistanceCenter SCC, at 210/684-8180.

ResourcesCapitol Publications, Inc. School Law News

(Alexandria, Va.: Capitol Publications, Inc., March21, 1997), 25(6).

Larson, Marta. "is Harassment a Problem in Your

School ?" Equity Coalition (Ann Arbor. Michigan:Program for Educational Opportunity, Universityof Michigan School of Education, Spring 1996).

McGrath, Mary Jo. Sexual Harassment InvestigationTraining Manual: Training for Administratorsand Staff(Santa Barbara, Calif.: Mary Jo McGrath,1996).

Orenstein, P. School Girls: Young Women. Self-Esteemand the Confidence Gap (New York, NY: AnchorBooks, 1994).

Penny-Velazquez, Michaela. "Combating Students'Peer-to-Peer Sexual Harassment: Creating GenderEquity in Schools,"IDRANewsletter(San Antonio,Texas: Intercultural Development ResearchAssociation, March 1994).

Scott, B. "Administrator's Alert: Sexual Harassmentis Everybody's Business," IDRA Newsletter (SanAntonio, Texas: Intercultural DevelopmentResearch Association, March 1996).

Thompson Publishing Group. Educator's Guide toControlling Sexual Harassment (Washington,D.C.: Thompson Publishing Group, May 1997).

Maria Aurora Yonez-Perez, is a research assistant inthe IDRA Division of Research and Evaluation.Comments and questions may be sent to her via E-mail at idra@idra.org.

August 1997 FA IDRA Newsletter0

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S 1997 IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS REGIONAL CONFERENCES

A Call to Action: Working Together for Equity and Excellence

General Assembly SessionsDaily sessions will feature a variety of speakers, including officials fromthe U.S. Department of Education and educational leaders from acrossthe nation.

Education Reform InstitutesThese half-day institutes will focus on key topics in education reformwithin the context of the conference's overarching themes of equity,excellence and.collaboration. The format and content of the instituteswill focus onffiree major elements: research, collaborative demonstrationmodels and implementation strategies. Participants will have theopportunity to attend two institutes. Institute topics include:

Setting and Reaching High StandardsCreating a Better School Environment

+ Assessing Student AChievement4 Mastering Reading

Mastering,die Foundations of MathematicsO Explorink Public School Options4 Promoting and,Managing Change in Schools and Communities4 Recruiting, Preparing and Retaining Excellent Teachers4 Involving Families and Communities in Education4 Using Technology as a Tool for Education Reform4 Facilitating Higher Education, Work Transitions, Lifelong Learning

Technical Assistance WorkshopsEach conference will offer a full day of technical assistance workshopsfor participants to learn more about how federal, state and local resourcescan be integrated to support education reform. Workshops will provideprogram-specific and cross-program technical assistance in the followingareas: Title I, Goals 2000, Magnet Schools, Charter Schools, Homeless,Impact Aid, Bilingual Education, Special Education, Technology, EvenStart, Migrant Education, Indian Education, Eisenhower ProfessionalDevelopment, Safe and Drug -Free Schools and Communities, School-to-Work, Adult and Vocational Education, Integrated Reviews,Cooperative Audit Resolution, Waivers and more!

Who Should Attend?4 Federal, regional, state and local technical assistance providers0 Grantees, administrators and managers of programs administered

by offices of the Department of EducationOfficials of state education agencies

O Officials of local education agencies+ School-based instructional leaders0 Teacher leaders and principals0 Officials of national and community-based educational

organizations.We strongly encourage participation by state and local teams. A groupdiscount is available. Join us for three days of learning, networking andaction-planning...

October 16-18, 1997 San Diego, CaliforniaHost Center: Southern California Comprehensive

Assistance Center (Region XII)(Alaska, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington,Wyoming, American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia.Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Republic ofthe Marshall Islands, Republic of Palau)

November 16-18, 1997 Dallas, TexasHost Center: STAR Center (Region VIII)

(Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin)

December 14-16, 1997 Washington, D.C.Host Center: Region III Comprehensive Center

(Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia,Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, SouthCarolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Virgin Islands)

Contact the I.4S Conference hotline at 1-800-203-5494 if you have any questions or concerns.Also visit the conference web site for more information at www.ncbe.gwmedu/iasconferences

*CH

AMA0

ASSt3L

5835 Callaghan Road, Suite 350San Antonio, TX 78228-1190

5971 54 280mHAVIDHAIXED ADC 760ERIC/CRESSPO Box E148AcquisitionsCharleston, WV 25325-1348

17

Non-Profit Organization

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

Permit No. 3192San Antonio, TX 78228

Creating schools that work for all children,through research materials development training technical assistance evaluation information dissemination

ri

(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

1 ic I

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").