Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

April 3rd, 2013:

Davis says she’s not running for Governor next year

So much for that.

Sen. Wendy Davis

State Sen. Wendy Davis, who has emerged as one of the most visible Democrats in the Capitol this session, says she has no plans to run for governor in 2014, but will seek another term representing Fort Worth next year.

“I’m running for my Senate district in 2014, and hopefully earning the confidence of my community once again,” Davis said on Sunday’s edition of KXAN’s In Session, In-Depth.

Since capping the 2011 legislative session with a filibuster over an education bill, Davis has emerged as a rising star among Texas Democrats who’ve been shut out in statewide election for coming up on two decades. Since narrowly winning re-election in 2012, Davis has been front and center on several issues close to her party’s heart — including better funding for education and increased attention to social services needs.

This month, she was among only two senators to vote against the budget bill because she said it would do too little to reverse the deep cuts in school funding enacted two years ago when much of the state was still mired in the recession.

In her KXAN interview, conducted last week in the back lobby of the Senate chamber, Davis acknowledged that her profile has risen during her third legislative session.

“If I’m in the spotlight for supporting public education, I’m very proud to be there,” she said.

But she added that she does not intend to parlay that higher profile into a bid for higher office — even though there is no obvious Democrat in the wings to take on the entrenched GOP machine.

Davis also said it’s “too soon to tell” whether Democrats can mount a serious statewide challenge, even as several Republicans are jockeying for position in several races — from governor to lieutenant governor to land commissioner.

Click over for video of the interview with Sen. Davis plus several other interviews with legislators. It goes without saying that you can’t mount a serious challenge without a serious challenger. Of the people I’ve speculated about, some have already stated their intention to do something other than run for Governor next year. Those that have not yet taken themselves out of the running, at least as far as I know, include Sen. Rodney Ellis, Cecile Richards, and – I’m going to keep including him in my speculations until he specifically says he’s out – Henry Cisneros. I’m sure there are other people I could be speculating about as well. As for Sen. Davis, I can’t say I’m surprised by this. She will have a tough fight on her hands to win re-election next year, but it’s not as if running for Governor would have been a cakewalk. The status of her district is no longer in contention – both she and the state have taken the position that the interim map from 2012 is what they want going forward – so at least she knows what she’s getting into. She has my full support, and I continue to hope there will be someone at the top of the ticket to abet her efforts. Texpatriate has more.

School stuff

Just a basic roundup of education-related stories, since there’s so much going on.

From the Trib, action in the House on testing in grade school.

Elementary and middle school students currently take a total of 17 state exams before high school. They are tested each year in grades three through eight in reading and math, plus there are additional exams in science or writing or social studies, depending on the grade. At the urging of some parents and educators, several lawmakers have proposed either eliminating testing in lower grades altogether or to dropping the number of tests to as few as 10. To avoid the risk of losing federal funding, both proposals would require a waiver under No Child Left Behind’s accountability requirements.

[Rep. Bennett] Ratliff’s House Bill 2836 would address an issue specific to younger test-takers — the amount of time they must spend sitting still to complete their state exams, which now have four-hour time limits. Ratliff said that teachers, test developers and administrators told him that “four hours is just entirely too long for a third-, fourth-, fifth-grader to sit and concentrate and do their best work.”

His bill would require exams at lower grade levels to be reworked so that most students could complete them in two hours or less. It would also remove the time limit so that struggling students could take the rest of the day to complete the test if needed.

Ratliff’s bill would also would reduce the amount of testing in lower grades to the extent possible under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, by eliminating writing exams in fourth and seventh grades and the social studies exam in eighth grade.

But for parents concerned about the effects of high-stakes testing on young children, that is not enough, said Susan Kellner, the vice president of Texans Advocating for Meaningful Student Assessment, a statewide grassroots organization.

“The issue is that No Child Left Behind requires 14 tests between the grades of three through eight, and really that limits what these bills can do,” she said.

Some lawmakers, like state Rep. Dan Huberty, R-Humble, are attempting to get around those requirements by passing laws that would require state education officials to request a waiver from the federal government.

Under House Bill 866, by Huberty, students who do well on state exams in third and fifth grades could skip exams in fourth, sixth and seventh grades. All students would be tested in math in the third and fifth grades, on reading in third, fifth and eighth grade, on writing and science in fifth and eighth grades, and on social studies in eighth grade.

Hubert’s bill is similar to one he co-authored last session with Rep. Scott Hochberg. It was a good idea then and it remains a good idea now. That hasn’t stopped Bill Hammond and the TAB from digging their heels in against it for reasons that are not clear to me. But come on, there is nothing about this that contravenes the goals of rigor and accountability. I do not get where TAB is coming from on this.

Also at the Trib, the TEA wants to change the accountability ratings to letter grades.

Texas Education Agency Commissioner Michael Williams told senators Tuesday that the state intends to move forward with developing an A through F public school accountability rating system that would take effect in 2014.

“With the engagement of hundreds of educators and stakeholders around the state providing advice and council to TEA during the past year with the development of the accountability system, it was recommended to me and I accepted the recommendation to move in that direction,” he said.

Williams said that although he had the authority to make the transition without enacting legislation, he did not want to formally approve the change without an opportunity to answer legislators’ questions.

Proponents of the A through F system, which include House Public Education Chairman Jimmie Don Aycock, R-Killeen, and Senate Education Chairman Dan Patrick, R-Houston, say that its transparency helps engage parents in their community schools by making their performance easier to understand. A similar proposal overwhelmingly passed the lower chamber as a part of House Bill 5.

“It’s a system that we all grew up with. We all got grades A, B, C, D, F in school, and the public will understand, too,” Williams said.

I don’t feel strongly about this one way or the other. As long as the evaluations mean something and everyone understands what they mean, and knows what they need to do to move up, it’s fine by me.

Also in the Senate, a bit of a slap fight between Williams and Patrick.

State Sen. Dan Patrick, who chairs the Senate Education Committee, told his fellow lawmakers Tuesday morning that he had read the newspaper editorials and comments suggesting that his graduation plan bill (SB3) lowers standards. He staunchly disagrees and wanted Education Commissioner Michael Williams to back him up. The committee chairman didn’t get the answer he sought.

“I just want to be on the record that we have not stepped back in rigor,” said Patrick, R-Houston.

“Allow me to respectfully disagree,” Williams countered.

Williams tried to elaborate, but Patrick interrupted, saying it’s the senator who gets to ask the questions.

Eventually given a chance to speak again, Williams said that the default graduation plan for high school students today requires them to take English III and Algebra II. The current default plan also requires four years each of English, math, science and social studies. All students are put on the default plan and need parental permission to drop to an easier plan.

Under Patrick’s bill, which has passed the Senate Education Committee, the default plan (called the foundation diploma) does not require Algebra II. It requires four years of English and three years each of math, science and social studies. Students could choose to take a tougher path — called getting an endorsement — and then would have to take Algebra II.

Williams said he was particularly troubled that the proposed default plan is easier than current law. Patrick said Algebra II is losing its status as a “holy grail” course for colleges, but he offered a compromise to try to win over Williams. Patrick said Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, planned to offer an amendment to SB3 that would require all students to start on the tougher “endorsement” route, with parental permission needed to drop down, similar to current law.

We saw this same fight play out in the House last week, with Rep. Mark Strama leading the fight to keep Algebra II as part of the default requirements for a diploma. He lost that fight, but it looks like it will be re-fought in the Senate. It will be very interesting to see what happens if the Senate bill keeps the Algebra II requirement. Should make for some boisterous times in the joint committee to reconcile the two bills.

And finally, here’s this week’s legislative update from Raise Your Hand Texas. They’re a good source for more of what’s going on in education legislation, so follow them in whatever fashion you prefer to keep up with this stuff.

The day pass is back

From Metro:

The METRO Board of Directors [Thursday] took the first step to bring back the “day pass.” The Board voted to commit $175,000 to adapt METRO’s Q Card system so a $3.00 extended “day pass” feature can be accommodated later this year. The action allows METRO to modify an existing contract with ACS/Xerox so software can be adjusted to accept this fare payment option.

The action, at [Thursday]’s monthly METRO Board meeting, follows requests from the riding public and is a necessary step in reintroducing the popular fare which was discontinued in 2008 when the METRO Q Card was introduced.

METRO board chairman Gilbert Garcia said, “This is great news for our current patrons and an incentive for new ridership. We were constrained by the software that is used in our fare collection system and will be able to get past that with this action. We’ve been pushing for this as a board and will be delighted to offer the option to riders again soon.”

The extended “day pass” is expected to be reintroduced later this year when the software has been modified and the changes implemented in METRO’s revenue collection system.

See here for some background. This is a good move, and should help them with their stated goal of increased ridership. Passes work with both buses and the light rail, so if you rode the bus to work you can take the train to lunch at no extra cost. While this is obviously intended to give a discount to frequent riders as well as to encourage more ridership, it might wind up costing a bit less than originally estimated because not everyone who buys a day pass may actually use it often enough to achieve that discount. You’d need to take at least three trips to make your day pass pay for itself. Last year, I was in the San Jose/Sunnyvale (*) area for some training at Symantec, and used the light rail system there to travel between my hotel and the Symantec campus. I bought a day pass each day, which equaled the cost of three rides, partly because it was easier to make one purchase and meant one fewer receipt to keep track of, and partly because I might have wanted to go out in the evening. In the end, I never did go out after returning to my hotel after class – though the train stopped right in front of the Symantec campus, it was about a mile from my hotel, and one round-trip walk between the hotel and the station was enough for me. It’s entirely plausible to me that some number of people will buy Metro day passes intending to take extra trips during their day, then not actually taking them.

Not addressed by this press release is whether Metro will bring back some of the other volume discounts it used to offer, such as weekly and monthly passes. I sent an inquiry to Metro about this, and the response I got was that there were no plans to do that at this time. If this is something you would like to see them bring back, or at least consider bringing back in some form, I recommend you contact Metro via whatever means appeals to you and let them know about it.

(*) Note: That’s Sunnyvale, not Sunnydale. BIG difference.

The Chron would like someone to do something about the Dome

Something other than turning it into a parking lot, please.

Still cheaper to renovate than the real thing

Whatever we do with the former Astrodome location should bolster Reliant Stadium’s capability to host events and make the overall complex a more attractive location during bidding processes.

For inspiration, county officials should look north along the light rail line to downtown’s Discovery Green. During the NBA All-Star Game, that urban park hosted media events and fan spectacles that helped make the weekend such a success. And George R. Brown conventioneers are a common sight at Discovery Green’s grassy fields. If Reliant hosts a convention, or the Summer X Games, or a Super Bowl, fans and media folk could use a go-to gathering place that is more than a temporary installation on a concrete field that seems to stretch to the horizon.

A post-Dome park could even implement parts of the once-great stadium in its design – bleachers as park benches, a few spots of classic AstroTurf, some remaining interlaced concrete facade as a sunshade. A University of Houston graduate student in architecture has even proposed a plan to strip the Dome down to its skeleton and let the metal husk stand over a park like a Houston-style Eiffel Tower.

See here for more about that UH student’s suggestion. I like the idea of a park, but I’m not sure how much use it would get being located between Reliant Stadium and Loop 610. I guess you could say the same kind of thing about Memorial Park, and that’s worked out pretty well for us. Just don’t rush Commissioners Court, they’ll get to it when they get to it.