In a conference call with Texas bloggers Monday afternoon, Dr. Raymond Eve, a professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Arlington, who conducted the survey for TFN, outlined its results and highlighted five key findings contained in a report released today outlining the results of the study:

1. Texas scientists (97.7 percent) overwhelmingly reject “intelligent design” as valid science.

2. Texas science faculty (95 percent) want only evolution taught in science classrooms.

3. Scientists reject teaching the so-called “weaknesses” of evolution, with 94 percent saying that those arguments are not valid scientific objections to evolution.

4. Science faculty believe that emphasizing “weaknesses” of evolution would substantially harm students’ college readiness (79.6 percent) and ability to compete for 21st-century jobs (72 percent).

5. Scientists (91 percent) strongly believe that support for evolution is compatible with religious faith.

The survey was released just as the State Board of Education prepares to vote on new science curriculum standards for public schools early next year.

In the conference call, Dr. Eve told bloggers a bit about the methodology of the survey, which was quite interesting. It was particularly interesting that the return rate on the surveys was 45 percent. From the report:

In late fall 2007 and early spring of 2008, a lengthy survey (59 questions – some open-ended) was sent to 1,019 individual biology and biological anthropology faculty members from all 35 public universities plus the 15 largest private institutions in Texas. In the end 464 survey recipients submitted completed questionnaires. This represents better than a 45% response rate – almost unheard of for the remote return of a lengthy questionnaire of this type. The diversity of the response was also surprisingly robust, with respondents participating from 49 different institutions. Presumably this high response rate reflects the sense of eagerness and importance that the respondents attached to expressing their actual opinions on this issue. The overwhelming response rate provides the first unambiguous finding of this survey: we can now say with certainty that scientists are extremely invested in the issue of creationism/intelligent design generally and in the political debate over science standards in the state of Texas specifically. [Emphasis added]

This paragraph is very telling, as well:

It is no exaggeration to say that Texas colleges and universities have a world-class science faculty and boast some of the most respected science educators found anywhere. These scientists should be an invaluable resource in crafting curriculum standards that prepare Texas schoolchildren for college and for the jobs of tomorrow. But is anyone listening? The State Board of Education would do well to heed the advice from these professors. The science education of a generation of students hangs in the balance.

If, for some reason, the wingnuts on the State Board of Education think that the science faculty at Texas’ colleges and universities are as conservative in their beliefs as they are when it comes to rejecting sound science, they should think again:

The response to this survey unequivocally establishes that nearly all qualified scientists in Texas colleges and universities firmly support the current mainstream consensus on the validity of evolutionary processes and
reject intelligent design as representing a scientifically credible alternative.

And, if you happen to be wondering about that small percentage of science educators at Texas’ universities that do favor creationism or intelligent design, then this may explain them a bit better. From the report:

What can we say about the small minority of Texas science faculty (2%) who
evidence some measure of support for intelligent design/creationism? (For
purposes of this analysis, intelligent design/creationist supporters are all respondents who indicated either “Modern evolutionary biology is right about the common ancestry of all extant organisms, but it is necessary to supplement it by invoking periodic intervention by an intelligent designer” or “Modern evolutionary biology is mostly wrong. Life arose through multiple creation events by an intelligent designer, although evolution by natural selection played a limited role.”)

The educational profile of this group is revealing. Ten supporters of intelligent design/creationism responded to the question, “Have you taught a course that included a substantial block of material on human evolution?”. Of the ten, seven persons replied “no,” as compared to three who replied “yes.” So we readily see that most intelligent design supporters identified in this survey do not teach courses that address evolution. Even more strikingly, no person in the subsample of those supporting intelligent design reported teaching graduate students about human evolution within the past five years.

(Another way of phrasing this last point is to say that there was no person out of the total sample of 464 respondents who said they both supported intelligent design and had taught graduate students within the past five years.) We are therefore safe in concluding that the already thin support for teaching intelligent design vanishes to essentially zero when looking at established Texas biology and biological anthropology faculty who teach at the graduate level. [Emphasis added]

Now, some comments from the folks at TFN:

“This survey leaves no doubt that the political crusade against evolution and other attempts to dumb down our public school science curriculum are deeply misguided,” TFN Education Fund President Kathy Miller said today. “Texas scientists are clearly worried that failing to provide a 21st-century science education in our public schools will harm our children’s chances to succeed in college and the jobs of the future.”

And, for those State Board of Tinfoil Hat Nutters disciples who will try to discredit the scientist (as they often do with studies like this), Dr. Eve isn’t just a sociology professor. He’s spent decades studying this precise kind of trend:

Dr. Eve has studied creationism for more than two decades. He is a co-author/editor of Cult Archaeology and Creationism: Understanding Pseudoscientific Beliefs about the Past. He is also co-author of The Creationist Movement in Modern America. He has published numerous articles and book chapters on creationism, intelligent design and evolution; generally these adopt the viewpoints taken by either social movements theory and/or relationships to science literacy. He has written about how the rise of the new science of chaos and complexity theory offers a naturalisitic alternative to the concept of “irreducible complexity” that resides at the heart of intelligent design. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in social movements; science, knowledge and technology studies; science and religion; and socialization and social control. He is the author of current entries in the World Book Encyclopedia on “creationism” and “intelligent design.”

Too, back in 1988 Dr. Eve and a colleague conducted a study about high school biology teachers that made a lot of news. This is from a Chicago Tribune article we found on Lexis (sorry, no link):

A high percentage of high school biology teachers profess superstitious beliefs, and about a quarter of them think some races of people are inherently more intelligent than others, according to a survey.

Also, about 19 percent of the teachers believe dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, according to the national survey by two researchers at the University of Texas at Arlington.

To say that TFN found someone who is preeminent in this field would be an understatement.

Check this:

State records show the program’s developers received about $500,000 in royalties from book publishers and vendors.

Leaders at the State Center for Early Childhood Development who developed the Texas Early Education Model — better known as TEEM — say they don’t receive royalties from products used directly in TEEM classrooms. They receive royalties when other schools or pre-K programs use products they have developed from their early childhood research.

But critics view the TEEM approach as little more than an effort by state center staff members to market their research and products through a variety of commercial vendors.

“This preschool scheme is not about preparing these little ones to be ready for school,” said Jay Spuck, a retired Houston area school administrator, former classroom teacher and education advocate. “It is about advancing a political agenda of implanting corporate interests into nursery schools. It is all about trademarks, copyrights, patents, contracts, royalties, power and greed. The goal is to privatize education, ‘cradle to college.’”

Since launching five years ago, TEEM has cost about $80 million. But while the price tag is high, Susan Landry, the director of the state center, says she’s optimistic it will help thousands of 3- and 4-year-olds achieve greater academic success as they navigate the public school system.

The state center, which runs TEEM, falls under the umbrella of the Children’s Learning Institute at the University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston.

“I really expect these kids to show effects of this program long term. It is probably not an inoculation against everything bad in education (and society),” Landry said. “But it gives them a fair shot. They get to start on the same footing. These kids are writing their names, they are writing letters and they are so proud of it.”

TEEM evolved from legislation (SB 76) approved by state lawmakers in 2003 to improve pre-kindergarten coordination between public schools, Head Start programs and child care centers. At least 75 percent of youngsters participating in TEEM classrooms must come from low-income families.

We’ll see if the Legislature does anything to address this in January.

That’s not good news for Texas education, by any means. First off, the Permanent School Fund generates investment income which is transferred to the Available School Fund, which is in turn used to directly finance public education in Texas. While the funding isn’t all (or even the lion’s share) of funding that goes to public education in Texas, it is still a lot.

Second, the Permanent School Fund guarantees bonds issued by local school districts to finance construction and other improvements. The problem here is two-fold. First, the PSF was already almost out of capacity to guarantee any additional bonds this summer. And, while the reason for that was merely waiting on the IRS to approve some legislation passed last year that raised the amount of bonds the PSF can guarantee, one must wonder exactly how much in bonded debt the fund can actually guarantee given it has lost $10 billion in value.

As President Bush prepares to leave office, the legislature is preparing to put the final nails in the coffin of the mandate that students in certain grades pass a standardized test before being promoted– a hallmark of the Student Success Initiative that the former governor touted as he ran for President in 2000.

Ending the mandatory test passage requirement is part of a proposal put forth by the heads of a joint House-Senate committee created to address education issues. The Dallas Morning News has more:

The proposal also would base annual school performance ratings on three years of test scores rather than the most recent year, allowing school districts and campuses to make up for a bad year of results with a couple of positive years.

Those changes, presented to a special House-Senate committee on school accountability, are expected to be welcomed by school superintendents and teachers across the state, who have repeatedly complained about requiring students in three grades – 3, 5 and 8 – to pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills before earning promotion.

The requirement, part of the Texas Student Success Initiative, was originally proposed by former Gov. George Bush in his 1998 re-election campaign and then passed by the Legislature in 1999. The first group of students called on to pass the TAKS were third graders in the 2002-03 school year.

Of course, one former bush adviser who serves on the Select Committee on School Accountability, which was mandated by Senate Bill 1301, passed by the 80th Texas Legislature, has complaints:

But another member of the committee, former Bush education adviser Sandy Kress, called the proposal a “step back” in a state that still has a serious problem with social promotion – automatically passing students regardless of achievement.

Mr. Kress said lifting the state requirement and leaving it to local school districts to decide when a student should be promoted would result in large numbers of students being pushed through the system without the skills they need.

It’s worth noting that this comes as Bush as leaving office. His “legacy” as Governor of Texas is already being dismantled, and he hasn’t even left office.

Earlier this week, Texas Freedom Network Presiden1t Kathy Miller offered sharp criticism of the inclusion of three evolution proponents–including two that authored a text book–on a panel that will review the newly proposed science curriculum standards for Texas public schools.

“It’s simply stunning that any state board members would even consider appointing authors of an anti-evolution textbook to a panel of scientists,” she said. “Are they coming here to help write good science standards or to drum up a market for their lousy textbook?”

The text, Explore Evolution, is intended for secondary and postsecondary use, according to its distributor, Seattle’s Discovery institute. The State Board of Education could consider it for the state’s approved list of science textbooks in 2011.

There is more on the Texas Freedom Network’s blog.

A number of scientists and science instructors from universities across the state making up the newly-formed 21st Century Science Coalition yesterday denounced attempts by the State Board of Education to water down evolution instruction in Texas public schools.

The Texas Observer has a detailed account; the Dallas Morning News also covered a press conference by the group.

Of course, all of this is because the State Board of Education is preparing to consider a new science curriculum. And, since Texas buys such a large number of textbooks and have such a bizarre textbook selection process, publishers around the nation tailor the content of science textbooks to meet the whims and desires of the SBOE,. This means that whatever crap the SOBE wants is forced upon public school kids across the nation.

Last month, an academic work group proposed that standards for biology courses dump language relating to teaching students the “strengths and weaknesses” of theories. The State Board of Education is expected to oppose this, since a majority of SBOE members are right-wing, anti-evolution ideologues.
One of my favorite quotes from yesterday’s event is below:

Even at Baylor University in Waco, the world’s largest Baptist university, professors don’t teach creationism because it’s not based on science, said Richard Duhrkopf, an associate professor of biology.

“We shouldn’t be teaching the supernatural in science classrooms,” Duhrkopf said. “It’s time to keep religion and faith in the Sunday schools and not in the public schools.”

Of course the State Board of Education’s chair, Don McLeroy, denies that the issue is about religion:

McLeroy denies he is trying to force religion and the supernatural into Texas schools.

“I’m getting sick and tired or people saying we’re interjecting religion,” he said. “We’re certainly not interjecting religion. Not at all.”

McLeroy says he supports restoring the “strengths and weaknesses” language and said working groups left some form of that language in the proposed standards for chemistry and astronomy. He also said he supports the “testable explanations” approach advocated by the National Academy of Sciences.

Yeah. We believe you, Don.

For Texas students, that’s a great thing. However, the rightwingers on the State Board of Education, the elected body that has the final say over the curriculum standards, are already bracing for a fight.

Don McLeroy (R-Bryan), the chair of the SBOE has already come out fighting with some pretty stupid justifications behind the rightwing’s side of the battle:

“I’d argue it doesn’t make sense scientifically to take it out,” Don McLeroy, R-Bryan, the state board chairman, said of removing the “strengths and weaknesses” language. “Evolution shouldn’t have anything to worry about — if there’s no weaknesses, there’s no weaknesses. But if there’s scientifically testable explanations out there to refute it, shouldn’t those be included too?”

Translated into English, McLeroy is saying it doesn’t make scientific sense to teach Texas public school children that the theory of evolution is scientifically sound.

More on the “strenghts and weaknesses” doctrine:

Though the “strengths and weaknesses” verbiage has been in the Texas curriculum standards for nearly 20 years, the board has not had the votes to require that any specific challenges to evolutionary theory be taught. That could change with the current curriculum revision, a process that only takes place every 10 years. In previous public discussions, seven of 15 board members appeared to support, on some level, the teaching of the weaknesses of evolution in science classrooms.

There are presently two swing votes, Geraldine “Tincy” Miller of Dallas, a Republican, and Rick Agosto, a San Antonio Democrat. That’s one more reason it is important to elect Democrats like Edra Bogle (D-Denton) and Laura Ewing (D-Houston) to the SBOE this cycle.

Technorati Tags Dallas, Don McLeroy, Edra Bogle, Geraldine "Tincy" Miller, Houston, Laura Ewing, Rick Agosto, San Antonio, State Board of Education, Texas

A federal judge has signed off on a settlement that in three years will end 30 years of federal judicial oversight of the Uvalde school district.

The suit brought by resident Genoveva Morales accused the district of failing to provide equal access to education for Mexican-American students.

A student walkout in 1970 gained national media attention.

The settlement, agreed to this week by U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, guarantees that progress and access to the district’s gifted programs and extracurricular activities will be monitored. It also provides assurances that good teachers will be pursued for Hispanic students.

“This was the result of substantial good-faith efforts by both sides,” said David Hinojosa, a lawyer for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which represented Morales when she sued the district in 1970.

We’ve been trying to locate (without success) a list of other Texas schools under similar federal orders. If you know of one, leave a link in the comments.

A couple of paragraphs jumped out at us as a pretty easy way to help explain to readers the issues the lawsuit seeks to address:

“The Administrative Procedure and Practice Act provides minimum standards of uniform practice and procedures for state agencies…An agency and its head are only semi-autonomous. The legislature may delegate its powers to an administrative agency, but a state agency only has the power and authority granted to it by the legislature. Rules and regulations that an agency or agency head imposes must be in harmony with the authorizing legislation.

The Texas Education Code as amended by HB 2237 does not authorize the Commissioner to award pubic money to a private, non profit organization or entity to pvovide “educational programs to students in any of grades K-12.” There is no specific authority and no implied authority.

In short, the Legislature has never granted TEA the right to subsidize non-public educational programs in this manner. Implied authority in this case would mean authority either that the legislature intended to give TEA authority to do this and simply did not, or that TEA has the authority to do this even though it hasn’t been expressly granted because such authority is necessary to carry out its requirements under the legislation. Neither is the case.

From the Dallas Morning News:

In the lawsuit, the Texas State Teachers Association accused the TEA and state Education Commissioner Robert Scott of using the dropout recovery grants to set up a limited private school voucher program.

“They couldn’t push vouchers through the Legislature in an above-board way, so they went through the back door to divert public dollars to private school programs,” said TSTA President Rita C. Haecker. She noted that lawmakers have repeatedly rejected private school vouchers in Texas.

“Given the finite pool of money available for dropout recovery and the pressing needs in our state, diverting public money to private educational programs clearly shortchanges public schools that need it and could effectively use it,” she said.

Twenty-two school districts that applied were turned down.

Of course, TEA says that the state’s dropout problem requires action on several fronts:

“This state has a serious dropout problem,” he said. “We need to be marshalling all our forces to respond to it. It’s incredible that TSTA thinks that nonprofit organizations don’t have a role to play in reducing the dropout problem and increasing the graduation rate.”

Of course nonprofits do have a role to play, but the state shouldn’t be funding that role. If TEA wants to work with public corporations to help get them to fund the programs at the non-profits, that’s fine. But state tax dollars should go to publicly funded–and operated–institutions.

Instead of focusing on financial need, it would become a more competitive scholarship program, and focus on students who excel academically.

From the Dallas Morning News:

Since 2004, the state hasn’t provided enough money to cover all students eligible for the grants, which provide about $5,200 a year – enough to cover average tuition and fees at public universities.

For the coming school year, the coordinating board estimates there will be enough grant money for only 28,000 of the 70,000 new students who qualify.

Thursday’s action is a move toward deciding which students deserve the money most.

“It is not a good message to send to poor students that by virtue of the fact you’re poor, you’re going to get aid,” said Raymund Paredes, the state’s higher education commissioner. “Students from all income classes should be sent the message that you should be expected to perform as well as you can.”

Sadly, Paredes evidently doesn’t understand the original intent of the TEXAS Grants program. It was designed to help poor students. Notes State Sen. Rodney Ellis:

“Don’t be in a position where we end up being penny-wise and dollar-foolish. The plan is working,” said Mr. Ellis, who led efforts to create TEXAS Grants in 1999.

For those unfamiliar, more about the program from the DMN:

Under current rules students must take a college-preparatory curriculum in high school to qualify for the grants. The vast majority of Texas students meet that standard today.

The proposed changes come at a time when political and business leaders are pressing public universities to enroll more low-income and minority students – people who make up a growing share of the state’s workforce.

The bulk of TEXAS Grants goes to students whose families make less than $40,000 a year. Three-fourths of recipients are minorities.

Last year, the Legislature ordered a review of state aid programs to make sure money is spent efficiently. The coordinating board hired a private consultant to come up with recommendations.

The consultant recommends that to receive TEXAS Grants, students either score 1350 out of 2400 on the SAT or 18 out of 36 on the ACT; graduate in the top half of their high school class; or complete the state’s most rigorous high school curriculum.
Dr. Paredes offered an even tougher set of recommendations Thursday. They include requirements that students either score 1500 on the SAT or about 21 on the ACT; graduate in the top 30 percent of their high school class; or graduate high school with a B average.

While board members voted to send the consultant’s report to the governor and lawmakers, they didn’t expressly endorse it. Nor have they endorsed Dr. Paredes’ recommendations. Rather, several board members said they need more information on how the proposed changes would affect lower-income and minority students.

Board member Robert Wingo of El Paso said more study is needed “so we are not putting the very students we’re trying to help at risk.”

Clearly, there will be a battle over this during the 81st Texas Legislature next year.

This week, Comer filed suit (lawsuit, .pdf) against the Texas Education Agency and Education Commissioner Robert Scott alleging she was fired over the forwarding of an email about a lecture critical of the movement to promote intelligent design in science classes (email, .png).

Interestingly, Comer claims that she was fired for her disagreement with a policy that she alleges is unconstitutional. The policy required that employees be “neural” on the subject of creationism. While it will be a while before Comer’s suit makes its way through the courts, she is probably correct. It simply doesn’t seem that any policy requiring state employees at TEA be “neutral” about a subject would pass constitutional muster since the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism as science in schools is illegal.

The policy was in force, according to the suit, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism as science in public schools is illegal.

For those unfamiliar with the Permanent School fund,it is one of the state’s oldest established designated funds. It was established by the state legislature in 1854, and funded by the Third Legislature with $2 million worth of treasury bonds that came from the state’s settlement with the United States upon annexation for payment of the state’s outstanding debts. The legislature regularly raided the fund through the Civil War for other purposes, and the Constitution of 1876 altered the fund, named it the Permanent School Fund, and prohibited its raiding for other purposes. Funded by the sale of public lands and petrochemical and mining royalties on public lands, today its funds are used to guarantee the issuance of general obligation bonds by independent school districts in Texas. For a mere $2,300 per bond issuance, school districts can have the PSF insure their bonds, negating the need for private bond insurance–which can be quite costly.

With $10 billion in bonds sold last year (including these bonds sold) by Texas schools, plus another $7 billion passed this past May, the PSF has a mere $371.7 million in capacity left to back upcoming bond issues.

Although this could place many Texas school districts in dire circumstances, this has happened before:

“Once, in December 2004,” said Cassie Huggins of the TEA’s state funding office. “Between December, January, and February back then, there were about 25 different school districts that were denied the guarantee due to a lack of available capacity.”

The maximum the PSF can guarantee is $56.3; it currently backs about $47.8 billion, including $4.6 billion issued this year, with $5.3 billion in bonds already in process or approved, but not yet sold. A 5% reserve fund for the Permanent School Fund must be maintained; this equals about $2.8 billion.

This is particularly interesting because the Texas Legislature has already taken steps to allow the PSF to issue additional bonds–up to five times its market value. The bill, SB 389 from the 80th Texas Legislature last year, was authored by State Sen. Florence Shapiro (R-Plano). Only two sessions prior, the Legislature passed legislation to increase the multiplier from 2 to 2 and a half. State Rep. Scott Hochberg (D-Houston) authored the legislation, HB 1295 (which was sponsored in the Shapiro.

However, the changes from the 80th Texas Legislature haven’t yet become a reality. Why? Because final approval for the changes must come from the Internal Revenue Service. The changes have been before the IRS since 2007. Bond Buyer offers the following reasoning:

One Dallas bond lawyer said the delay is partly due to the collapse of the auction-rate securities market, which has drawn federal regulatory resources away from other areas.

Huggins said the TEA has yet to hear anything from the IRS, and a representative from the office of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Tex., also said he hasn’t heard of an imminent ruling from the Treasury Department.

I guess we’ll see if this added publicity increases outcry from people like Sen. Hutchison to put a fire under the Internal Revenue Service.

CAPITOL ANNEX: Part of the recommendations from the LSG mention increasing the number of Tier One universities in Texas. Is this meant to be primarily based on existing universities or does it include the creation of new ones?

REP. COLEMAN: The model is similar–but not the same–as the California model. In California model, they were all in one university system, the University of California system. In Texas, there are schools now like Texas Tech in Lubbock, the University of Houston in Houston, and the University of Texas in Dallas. Clearly, you would want to work toward UTSA becoming a Tier-One university to serve South Texas, as well as UT El Paso. Also, the University of North Texas. There are many schools, and they are in the report, where their research level is at such a point that, with an investment in additional research which would create more grant funding, they would rise to the different tiers very quickly.

The “Top Tier” ranking is by the Carnegie Endowment that says a school is in the “Top Tier,” and that’s not to be confused with our “flagship” universities as designated by the Texas Constitution.

CAPITOL ANNEX: There has been a lot of talk in recent legislative sessions about a law school for East Texas, perhaps one in North Texas, and even mention of one in East Texas. How do these things fit into the plan for more top tier universities, or is that something separate from this?

REP. COLEMAN: This is actually something that is mentioned in Part Two of our report. I believe that Texas is so big that, in terms of regions of the state, there ought to be what is now the basic of a four-year education as well as graduate and professional school. We are only going to grow as a state in terms of population. When we look, for example, at the need for more positions–dentists, lawyers, nurses, and other professionals, there is no doubt we will outstrip our capacity as we continue to grow. That applies to English, history and public affairs programs, but also MBA programs and the like. We have to have a full array of academic choices in each region.

CAPITOL ANNEX: The Texas Legislature–the House and Senate–are presently considering a set of “interim charges” on various issues, including higher education. How are the LSG’s recommendations different and why should Texans pay attention to them?

REP. COLEMAN: What is different is that it is a 180-degree turn from what the accepted policy is of the leadership in the Legislature. This leadership, in terms of tuition costs alone, has allowed unelected boards of regents to jack up tuition costs beyond the reach of middle income families. They do not understand that we have to be competitive when it comes to core academic programs to attract more businesses. The more we prepare Texans for the workforce, the better workforce we will have, and the more prosperous everyone will be. This is why people should read this report. It talks about the power of higher education infrastructure to change and improve a state and its people.

CAPITOL ANNEX: In the LSG report, the Top Ten Percent law is specifically mentioned as something that Texas needs to continue to improve higher education. That law has come under fire in recent years. Why is it important to tie this law into the overall improvement of Higher Education.

REP. COLEMAN: First of all, this law helps all regions of the state. It is important that people from different regions have access to all higher education institutions. The complaint has been that there are not enough slots in Tier One public educational institutions, A&M and UT-Austin in particular. The problem is not with the Top Ten Percent Law; the problem is not enough slots of excellence compared to both smaller and larger states. Really, the program is not a problem. The problem is that there are not enough Tier One universities and not enough freshman slots for those who want to seek excellence. The goal is to improve excellence at as many of the universities as we can so that they rank in that top category. As I said, if you look at California, they have 10 public universities that are Tier One. We have two. If you look at other states that have half the population [of Texas], they have six. What we are saying is that the problem is not the Top 10 Percent Law–the problem is that there is not enough investment in infrastructure for higher education to provide the appropriate number of slots for excellence because we are not investing in creating Tier One institutions.

Over the years, and I think this has changed now, UT has been hostile to the idea of creating more Tier One institutions. I believe that may have changed based on former Chancellor Yudof’s recent comments. Some are looking for leadership [from the Tier One universities themselves] because, quite frankly, it does no good to keep everyone else down to raise your stature.

Another thing in the second part of the report, we will discuss some of the flaws in how tuition has created the economic divide between those who can afford a four-year college and those who can only afford community college–something created by the increase in tuition. The Legislature has kept community college tuition low, and the problem has become that community college has become the only choice for some because of income even if they can get into a four-year university.

It should not be that there is an economic division based on ability to pay. Community colleges are very important, but not the most important thing when it comes to higher education. It must be a combination of both to make higher education work in the future. It is the universities that will produce the next Bill Gates, or person responsible for the next ‘big thing.’

The recommendations from the LSG, a non-partisan group, represent the kind of bold thinking that Texas needs in order to truly reform higher education. It’s a clear departure from the higher education policy of the Perry-Dewhurst-Craddick administration, to be sure.

The report notes:

In 2003, for the first time in Texas history, the Texas Legislature abdicated its role as regulators of college tuition. Lawmakers made the choice to pass tuition deregulation in lieu of properly funding what should be a top priority of the state. This gave appointed, nonelected boards of regents unlimited power to raise tuition. The Legislature was able to shirk its responsibility for funding colleges by shifting more of the burden onto the shoulders of parents and students in the form of tuition costs.

“Abdicated,” and “shirk” are words that are apropos when it comes to describing what the GOP-controlled Texas Legislature has done with regard to its responsibility for higher education. Another way to put it, if you look forward to what the Lege did in 2007, is to say that the Legislature has continued to put property tax cuts and corporate welfare above the human needs of Texas’ young people.

I was also glad to see that the report called for the continuation of the Top 10 Percent Law. A lot of people don’t realize that the Top 10 Percent law doesn’t just help minorities. It also helps students in rural areas.

In addition to keeping the Top 10 Percent law, expanded scholarships are mentioned by the LSG:

Second, investment in state scholarships must increase to make up for the growing gap between state provided assistance and the cost of tuition. This would entail further funding of TEXAS Grants, expanding access to B-On-Time loans, and creating a separate and new fund for merit-based scholarships so that students do not have to graduate from college burdened with large debt.

The funding for merit-based scholarships will be a major battle for the Legislature if it remains in Republican hands. Republicans do not want to spend money on helping kids attend college–period.

Perhaps the most important recommendation, though (aside from tuition re-regulation), is the one having to do with creating more Tier-One universities in Texas:

Third, the state’s investment in university research programs must be expanded, creating more tier-one institutions of higher learning to compete with other states - this would ease crowding at Texas’ two flagship universities by increasing available slots of excellence for Texas students while bringing more industries and economic development to the state and creating jobs for Texans.

Building more schools up to Tier One status would be wonderful for Texas. For one thing, it would put Tier One universities in geographical reach of many parts of Texas. Second, more Tier One institutions would create more space for students who wish to attend such schools meaning Texas will have a better-educated work force which will, in the long run, a better economy.