Editorial Cartoon of the Day: December 17, 2012

Bill O’Reilly: What Happens in Vegas

Photo courtesy of iStockphoto

LAS VEGAS — This is a town that looks better at night. Millions of lights pierce the darkness creating a visual that is both energetic and trance-inducing. The multilayered lightshow is dazzling and unique in America.

But when the sun comes up, Las Vegas speaks directly to the recession. Half-completed buildings loom over the landscape like giant steel skeletons. Some developers ran out of money and simply walked away leaving huge, hulking abandoned structures to absorb the desert wind.

But just down Las Vegas Blvd. are the winners: lavish hotels that cater to one’s every need. This is a city that best defines the two Americas and our very competitive capitalistic system. If you want to understand the free marketplace, Las Vegas is an excellent classroom.

Millions of hardworking folks come here to have fun. In order to maximize the entertainment, you have to spend money. Whether you spend it on gambling, live shows or fine dining, it’s up to you. The money flow supports tens of thousands of service workers and, at a much higher level, the movers who run the tourist businesses. If you can’t make a decent living in Vegas, you are in major trouble. Responsible workers are sorely needed.

But still there is destitution on display. Addiction is the primary driver of that, although laziness is featured, as well. Some of the poor in this town simply want to play all the time. And they pay a price for that, as prosperity eludes them.

Some of the have-nots sit on sidewalks hoping for money from passersby. Sometimes, gamblers give the beggars casino chips. Panhandlers say the best time for them is after midnight when the winners emerge from the gambling dens. Redistribution is much easier when you’ve just run the table.

President Obama should spend some time in Vegas. Maybe then he would understand capitalism better. No matter how many handouts the panhandlers get, their circumstances rarely change. The money is mostly used to feed their compulsions.

On the other end, the rich 1 percenters hustling the gambling tables are trying to increase their affluence by taking chances. In the process, they are providing salaries for the hardworking men and women who keep the entertainment establishments running. Bottom line: Both the wealthy and the poor in Vegas are exercising their personal freedoms.

From observing the action in Vegas, Obama might finally realize that it’s freedom of choice that most often dictates who fails and who succeeds in the capitalistic system. In Vegas, no outcomes are guaranteed and no government can level the playing field. Prosperity or lack thereof is all about individual decision-making.

But the president would most likely never admit that, because it goes against his belief that government can impose a form of social justice by forcibly redistributing the wages of the successful.

For Barack Obama, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

Enhanced by Zemanta

John McCain Ends Up Getting What He Wanted

Photo illustration courtesy of Donkey Hotey / Flickr

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who on Thursday withdrew her name from consideration for Secretary of State, was the assistant secretary of state for Africa when I was working in the Clinton White House. She was vivid and direct — very striking for a diplomat. Even then, she had her fans and her detractors.

I was a fan. At the end of the Clinton presidency, Rice was honored at the White House — along with former National Security Advisor Tony Lake and White House Senior Director for Africa Gayle Smith — for her role in ending the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

This was an especially tragic war — a pointless war of pride between two poor countries that didn’t have one life to spare or a dollar to waste but couldn’t bring themselves to back down without the help of the United States.

Nobody can be more charming than Susan Rice, but that can change depending on conditions. I learned from talking to the other two on the team that Susan was assigned to dealing with “the leader known to be difficult.” She had a glare that could make her the negotiating equal of a head of state at a time of war. She once came out of a meeting, spitting: “That (expletive) questioned my manhood!”

Rice made some 15 trips between the two capitals in the summer of 1998. She and the team were slammed constantly in the papers in both countries — called by one head of state or the other “biased,” “dishonest,” “inexperienced,” “in-over-her-head” — whatever suited the politics of the moment.

She continued to be harshly criticized by both sides until they had a peace agreement. Then at the signing ceremony at Algiers, they thanked Rice and the team for “not giving up on us.”

So Susan Rice has known for a long time what it means to have her character and her competence distorted and attacked to suit someone’s ambitions.

Arizona Senator John McCain, in one of the more curious political tantrums recently thrown in this town, launched a preemptive campaign against Susan Rice for secretary of state, calling her “unqualified” based on public statements she made on Benghazi that tracked, as former CIA director David Petraeus confirmed, the unclassified account provided by the intelligence community.

McCain is one of the most unpredictable men in Washington — capable of displaying the greatest candor and the highest character of anyone in Congress, but capable also of sudden and surprisingly aggressive politics. So how would it serve McCain to take on a not-yet-nominated candidate for secretary of state?

First, it’s a shot at Obama. Obviously, the wounds of a losing a presidential campaign run deep, and seeing Obama win again could not have had pleasant associations for McCain. Going after Rice, who is personally close to the President, is a way to attack Obama on foreign policy, while also daring the president to either push Rice forward into a distracting and polarizing confirmation battle, or let her withdraw, making the president look weak or disloyal.

Second, McCain wants to be a bigger player in foreign policy. He had let it be known that he wanted a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He got what he asked for last Monday, which put him in a position to create hell for Rice in her confirmation hearings. This intensified the stakes for McCain. If Rice became secretary after McCain tried to derail her, McCain might not have had the access and influence he’d like at state.

If, on the other hand, McCain could force Susan Rice to withdraw her name from consideration, the next most likely nominee would be Senate Foreign Relations Chair John Kerry, McCain’s long-time friend and fellow Vietnam vet. McCain’s access and influence at the State Department would rise. It looks like the senator may get what he wants.

Meanwhile, the good news, and there is some, is that Rice continues at the U.N., where on Wednesday, the day before she withdrew her name from consideration for secretary of state, she faced off with the Chinese ambassador in a closed-door session of the Security Council to discuss responses to North Korea’s ballistic missile launch. Although the missile passed over Okinawa and prompted Japan to put its armed forces on alert, the Chinese ambassador Li Baodong declared that North Korea’s test constituted no threat to regional stability. Rice looked at him and said: “That’s ridiculous.”

That’s the kind of American candor even John McCain would admire.

Photo illustration courtesy of the gifted and talented Donkey Hotey.

Enhanced by Zemanta

State Records Shed Light on Texas’ Early “Illegals”

Photo courtesy of Spencer Selvidge, The Texas Tribune / Flickr

The undocumented immigrants had crossed the river in defiance of the law, then escaped capture by sneaking past armed patrols in the dark. They did not have the required paperwork and were ordered to leave, but the authorities suspected the immigrants would probably defy them.

It is a scenario that happens every day on the Texas-Mexico border. But in this particular incident, the immigrants were white, English-speaking Americans who were looking for a better life in Texas. And the authorities who were trying to keep them out were Mexican.

This is one those historical ironies that offers some modern lessons:

The year was 1830, a few months after Mexico had passed a law banning almost all immigration from the United States and provided for military garrisons along its border to enforce it.

Col. Jose de las Piedras, writing a letter (in Spanish) to Stephen F. Austin, the “father of Texas,” reported that he had encountered the immigrants east of the Trinity River heading west in what was then Mexico toward Austin’s colony, not far from modern-day Houston. He checked them for passports, but they had none, so he ordered them to leave Mexico pursuant to the new immigration law. They talked the colonel into letting them tend to some business in the colony, though, by promising to return and then exit the country within 20 days.

“But in contempt of the laws of the country and of its authorities and a total disregard to my orders which they promised to obey, availing themselves of the obscurity of the night and unfrequented roads, they took off [with] their families and are now on their way to your town, as I am informed by Col. Bean, who met them on that side of the Trinity” River, Piedras wrote in the letter, which now resides at the Texas General Land Office.

“As they have come into this country contrary to law and have disrespected the authorities,” he continued, “I think they ought not to be admitted.”

It is hard to know for sure what happened to these immigrants, though some of their names match those of families who got land in an independent Texas. What is known is that thousands of immigrants defied Mexican laws in coming to what is now Texas before the Anglo settlers declared independence from Mexico and formed their own nation, which later became the 28th state.

Today there are long stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border with fences and high-tech surveillance, not to mention thousands of Border Patrol agents. In the 1830′s Mexico didn’t have the resources to keep out the hordes of Americans pouring into Texas.

“The Mexican government was very lax. It allowed to let things get out of hand,” said Jesus F. de la Teja, director of the Center for the Study of the Southwest at Texas State University. “Since the colonists had gotten a pretty good chunk of the loaf, they wanted the whole thing.”

Their stories can be found among thousands of yellowing documents at the Land Office, where Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson — a Republican who has already announced his intention to run for lieutenant governor in 2014 — gains inspiration for his moderate views on immigration reform.

Long before President Obama’s re-election, after which prominent Republicans said their party needed to show Hispanics a gentler position on immigration reform, Patterson used Texas history to promote a softer and more nuanced view of what to do with people who have come here without work papers.

At Republican clubs around the state, he tells them that the first immigrants were white Americans — and that many of them were here illegally.

“We have a long tradition of immigration and illegal immigration, and the first illegals were folks who look a lot more like me than they did some native Tejano,” Patterson said. The commissioner, who favors an international guest-worker program, said all the issues that divide many Texans and Mexicans today — such as amnesty, cultural and linguistic assimilation, and deportation — divided them back then. But their roles are now reversed.

“The simplistic bumper sticker immigration policy is not in the best interest of the United States and we have a history that proves up that absolutes don’t necessarily work,” Patterson said.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at http://www.texastribune.org/immigration-in-texas/immigration/back-when-americans-were-illegals/. Texas Tribune donors or members may be quoted or mentioned in our stories, or may be the subject of them. For a complete list of contributors, click here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Remembering Pearl Harbor: A Date That Will Live in Infamy

The infamous Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, is shown in this Dec. 7, 1941 file photo. The USS Arizona is pictured in flames after being hit. Radio announcer Roger Krupp didn't hesitate to interrupt his Sunday programming, Dec. 7, 1941, to read The Associated Press news flash to listeners of WTCN-AM in Minneapolis. Now officials at Sotheby's auction house say he may, in fact, have been the first announcer to hit the air with news of the attack that drew the United States into World WarII. Media experts and World War II historians are skeptical of the claim, but Sotheby's expects to fetch $3,000 to $5,000 for the tattered teletype in an auction scheduled to take place Monday in New York. (U.S. Navy, File)

Why is it important that we remember the attack on Pearl Harbor, a painful piece of U.S. and military history that to new generations of Americans seems far in the past — even overwhelmed by the more recent Day of Infamy II, the attacks of 9/11?

There are thousands of reasons the morning of Dec. 7, 1941, will be forever a touchstone for our nation and the foundation for America’s evolving role in the world for the next several decades.

The numbers alone tell the compelling story of that morning in what was then a lonesome U.S. naval outpost in Hawaii, a string of island that would become a state less than 20 years later. It came under attack without warning from Japan, as Hitler was commanding a marauding German force across Europe. Horrifying events in Europe were well known in America, a nation at that time battling exceptional economic distress and in no mood to go to war.

And then came Pearl Harbor, which launched our nation into war with Japan. Later, Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S., which sealed our entry into World War II.

Life would be forever different as a result. Consider:

—2,388 Americans died in the air attack and 1,178 Americans were wounded

—21 American ships were sunk or damaged

—323 American aircraft were destroyed or damaged

—1,177 Americans involved in the attack were serving on the USS Arizona

—Only 333 servicemen serving on the USS Arizona survived the attack

While it’s heartening to note that an average of 4,000 people tour the site of the Pearl Harbor attack each day and 1.5 million visit the USS Arizona memorial annually, according to the National Park Service, it still seems the attack strays further from our national consciousness. It’s become something present generations are only aware of via movies and TV. The escalating demise of the “Greatest Generation” is putting this critical event in U.S. history evermore into the rear-view mirror of modern society. The gathering of Pearl Harbor survivors grows smaller.

Today, as people converge in Honolulu or other sites to mark the anniversary of what has become known as Pearl Harbor Day, it is instructive to remember the impact and legacy of this epic event. Author Peter Dowswell, in his 2003 book “Pearl Harbor,” writes that for 60 years Pearl Harbor lived up to President Franklin Roosevelt‘s description as “a date that will live in infamy.”

“It has been invoked to remind Americans about the consequences of treachery by foreign powers and complacency in government. The United States’ foreign policy has been based on the thinking ‘No more Pearl Harbors’ ever since,” he wrote.

In a larger sense, though, the attack on Pearl Harbor sealed America’s fate to be a global leader during World War II and beyond — a role this nation still plays.

Republished from the New Bern Sun Journal

Enhanced by Zemanta

George W. Bush: “Benevolent Spirit” Can Guide Debate

U.S. Navy photo by Senior Chief Photographer's Mate 2nd Thomas Coffelt

DALLAS — During his opening remarks Tuesday at a daylong conference on immigration and the economy, former President George W. Bush urged the nation’s leaders to debate immigration reform with compassion and kindness.

In a brief appearance at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Bush did not advocate for a specific solution. But his statements indicated he supports policies similar to those he championed during his presidency, when immigration reform was last debated in Congress.

“America can become a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time,” Bush said at the event, which was organized by the George W. Bush Institute and the Federal Reserve Bank. “As our nation debates the proper course of action on immigration reform, I hope we do so with a benevolent spirit and keep in mind the contributions of immigrants.”

Those contributions include “new skills and new ideas,” he said, adding that immigrants “fill a critical gap in our labor market.

“Not only do immigrants help build the economy, they invigorate our soul,” he said at the gathering of students, scholars and economists.

Bush did not take questions following his remarks. But his introduction appeared to set the tone for the panelists, whose focus was more on reform and its potential boon to the economy and less on law enforcement and border security.

Analysts said after last month’s general election that Republicans, including those who espoused hard-line views on illegal immigration, should recognize the growing voting power of the country’s minority population, including Hispanics who champion immigration reform, and find a solution.

Clint Bolick, a lawyer and the director of the Goldwater Institute‘s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, warned of what he said were poorly thought-out schemes by state legislatures to fix immigration within their own borders. If the trend persisted, he added, the problem would be too few immigrants to perform low-wage labor as opposed to too many.

“Alabama tried a nifty way” to address immigration with a disastrous result to the state’s GDP, he said, referring to the state’s recently passed bill that allows law officers to check immigration status. Portions of the bill are currently unenforceable and tied up in federal courts but the state’s agriculture economy suffered resounding labor losses after the bill was signed.

As far as immigrant youths, the focus of President Obama’s deferred action policies that grants legal status and a reprieve from deportation to certain younger undocumented immigrants, Bolick said the country needed to move more quickly than the DREAM Act. That legislation would provide a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented youths who meet certain guidelines. Bolick said the immigrants, who he said are American for all intents and purposes, should be given citizenship sooner than what the proposed legislation would allow.

Last week, outgoing U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, introduced the Achieve Act, which would create a new visa for undocumented youths who attend college or serve in the military to receive legal status and a work permit. It does not, however, allow for a pathway to citizenship.

At its conference last weekend United We Dream, an immigrants’ rights group whose affiliates include the University Leadership Initiative based at the University of Texas at Austin, reiterated its demand for Congress to pass the DREAM Act. The group also decided to push for reform beyond the DREAM Act.

“The DREAMers are leaders within their communities and their families.  They know firsthand the sacrifices their parents made to provide opportunities for their children,” Lynn Tramonte, the deputy director for the progressive America’s Voice Educational Fund, said in a prepared statement. “They are incredible spokespeople for their families, and will once again transform the immigration debate.”

According to a fact sheet released by the Bush Institute, immigrants accounted for more than half of the country’s labor-force growth from 2003 to 2012. Of the 8.4 million new workers, 4.4 million were immigrants. The center also said that in 2011, 11 percent of the country’s immigrants earned a graduate or professional degree, 1 percentage point higher than the country’s native-born residents.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at http://www.texastribune.org/immigration-in-texas/immigration/george-w-bushbenevolent-spirit-can-guide-debate/. Texas Tribune donors or members may be quoted or mentioned in our stories, or may be the subject of them. For a complete list of contributors, click here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Isn’t It Time We Americans Got to Know Each Other?

Air Force personel watch as the caskets of six fallen soldiers are loaded onto a waiting hearse at Dover Air Force Base Delaware July 8, 2009. All fallen service members are transferred directly from theater to the Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operation Center at Dover Air Force Base Delaware. (DoD photo by Benjamin Faske)

The late Tom Pettit, who covered American politics so well for NBC News from John Kennedy in 1960 to Bill Clinton in 1992, was missed even more during this year’s uninspiring presidential campaign. My personal favorite Tom Pettit professional moment was when he was interviewing Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz, who served in the Cabinets of both Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

Secretary Butz, an unrelenting critic of the food stamps program then under his department, unloaded on the “greedy” exploiters of food stamps he and his people were chasing down. Pettit asked Butz if he knew anyone who had used food stamps. Butz spoke about how he was no stranger to supermarkets, that he accompanied his wife on the grocery shopping and that he had personally seen people at the checkout counter paying with food stamps.

Pettit pressed Butz: Did the secretary know anyone — personally — who depended upon food stamps to feed her children? After an extended silence, the obviously displeased agriculture secretary answered the question, “No.” The only thing that followed was the close: “Tom Pettit, NBC News, Washington.”

This anecdote reminds me why the military draft between 1940 and 1973 educated so many of us about what it meant to be an American and, more importantly, tells me why in the second decade of the 21st century the United States desperately needs every 18-year-old American to give two years of national service, military or civilian, to their country.

First, a personal note: At Parris Island, S.C., in Marine Corps boot camp, for the first time in my life I slept in the same quarters with African-Americans and took orders, as a matter of course, from African-Americans. In that boot camp platoon, there were six college graduates, four young men who, given the option by juvenile courts, had chosen to enlist rather than have the judge impose a sentence and one of us, who proved to be both a gentle giant and a superb rifleman, who had never gone beyond the eighth grade.

We were mostly Catholics from the North or Baptists from the South. But we also included four Jewish Marines and even a couple of, to the manor born, Episcopalians. After the longest 13 weeks of our lives, we all came to know that while our ancestors may have come to America at different times and in different ships, now we were all in the same boat — and that each of us was an American.

The draft — when three out of four male college-graduates as well as high-school graduates served — guaranteed that Americans of all classes, all social strata and all areas of the country would shoulder the responsibility of defending their nation. And that in doing so they would rub shoulders with and — while sharing bunks, a weekend pass and, sometimes, even foxholes — get to know, and to depend upon, other Americans very different from themselves.

Which brings us back to a variation of Tom Pettit’s great question of Earl Butz: Do you, Mr. Commentator, or do you, Madame Senator, PERSONALLY know anyone whom your arguments or your votes have sent into combat? Have you attended the funeral of anyone whom you PERSONALLY knew who was killed in Iraq or Afghanistan?

A “Support Our Troops” decal on your SUV or a flag pin in your lapel does not qualify. The American Establishment — political, economic, academic and journalistic — has next to no personal stake in men and women who risk their life and limbs to defend the United States. Our military is increasingly integrated by race and increasingly segregated by class.

Tragically, most Americans today only know people exactly like themselves. Universal national service would introduce Americans to each other and to what it means to be a citizen.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Chuck Norris: Embrace a Thankful and Giving Heart

Photo courtesy of Cindi Albright

This holiday season, while we enjoy delicious food and visiting family and friends, let’s take a moment to give thanks for our many blessings.

It’s easy to get lost in all the bad news today — whether it be unfavorable election results, financial troubles, a struggling economy, an overreaching federal government, crisis in the Middle East or personal struggles. Our growing list of problems often seems overwhelming and endless.

It’s easy to give thanks when everything is going our way. But what about the difficult times?

The Bible, in 1 Thessalonians 5:18, commands us, “In everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.”

I noticed a poll this week indicating a full 45 percent of Americans would rather skip Christmas because they say it’s stressful and a strain on their finances.

But this season is not about braving crowded store aisles, crabby shoppers and maddening traffic jams so we can spend money on stuff our friends and family don’t actually need.

Before you rush to empty your pocketbook and cram the hottest toys under the tree, let’s examine our hearts this season and count our blessings.

Thankfulness brings joy and contentment; it changes your outlook and attitude.

There’s real power in a thankful heart.

Even when we are tapped out financially and emotionally, we should consider the truly meaningful blessings in our lives. My wife, Gena, and I thank God for our families, friends and neighbors, and for the joy of this season that we celebrate in His name.

In all the world’s darkness, we can be thankful for God’s great love and that He sent his Son so that all of us may have eternal life. That wonderful gift is available to everyone — regardless of our hardships and individual circumstances.

As President Ronald Reagan declared in his 1981 Thanksgiving proclamation, “Let us recommit ourselves to that devotion to God and family that has played such an important role in making this a great Nation, and which will be needed as a source of strength if we are to remain a great people.”

We thank God we are fortunate enough to have been born in the greatest country on Earth, in a land of abundance, prosperity and hope. We are grateful for our nation’s foundation on freedom, justice, democracy and the rule of law. We also pray that America’s leaders will look to God for guidance.

We’re thankful for the First Amendment, which guarantees our rights to express ourselves, petition our government and worship God freely. (I might add, we’re also thankful for our Second Amendment rights.)

We are grateful for all the sacrifices of our nation’s veterans and courageous men and women serving in the U.S. military, who continue to secure our liberty and keep our nation safe.

We thank God we live in a land of opportunity, where each of us is free to develop our individual talents and embrace our entrepreneurial spirit.

We’re grateful for our good health, our jobs, warm clothing, protective shelter and nourishing food. We’re thankful that we’re fortunate enough to have these things, so we’re able to show compassion and care for those among us who don’t.

We thank God for helping us practice humility, patience, kindness and forgiveness.

Most importantly — especially in these troubling times — we’re thankful that God is always in control.

Let’s not get caught up in the material trappings of the holidays and forget to give thanks just because Thanksgiving Day is behind us. This Christmas season, I challenge you to greet every day with a thankful and giving heart.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Texas Districts, Charters Advance in Federal Contest

Photo illustration courtesy of Todd Wiseman, The Texas Tribune

By the end of the year, a few Texas school districts may have access to millions in funding that Gov. Rick Perry had passed on two years ago because of concerns about federal intrusion into Texas classrooms.

Since Texas refused to participate in Race to the Top at the state level in 2010, the Obama administration has rolled out a new version of its signature education program to allow districts to apply individually for a separate pot of about $400 million in federal money. Administration officials announced the new round of competition that would emphasize data-driven personalized student learning plans in 2011, after three phases of the state-based contest.

That objective has produced a variety of proposals from Texas districts and charters. Galveston Independent School District is competing for $20 million that could mean more staff responsible for closely adapting its curriculum to the needs of students. Dallas-area Uplift Education, which has applied for $17 million in grants, wants increased access to college-level courses for its students and more resources to dedicate to parental engagement.

The two are among 61 national finalists announced this week by the U.S. Department of Education, which received 372 applications representing more than 1,100 districts and charter schools — 117 in Texas — for the grants. Despite the high number of applicants, the program’s critics extend beyond the governor.

The Texas American Federation of Teachers, which also opposed participation in previous versions of Race to the Top because of what it viewed as the overly rigid testing and teacher evaluation measures promoted by the competition, has raised concerns about the amount of input educators had in the application process.

Linda Bridges, president of the Texas AFT, said the lack of communication between educators and administrators in developing proposals had been disappointing. “Most of these plans have been developed by a superintendent or administrators and taken out to teachers to sign onto,” with limited input from educators beforehand, she said.

In response to such criticism, the Obama administration required teachers unions to sign off on district proposals for this round of applications, which caused turmoil in states that, unlike Texas, have a strong union presence. But Bridges said that had little practical impact on collaboration in school districts.

Winners are eligible for four-year grants ranging from $5 million to $40 million depending on their student population. The federal Education Department — which said finalists were chosen to represent a range of rural and nonrural districts — expects to select 15 to 25 winners from the finalists by Dec. 31.

Finalists in Texas include three charters: Idea Public Schools, Uplift Education and Harmony Public Schools. Traditional districts that made the final cut include McAllen, Galveston, Dallas, Aubrey, Burkeville, Newton and West Hardin. (The latter three applied as a group through their regional education service center.) Several large Texas school districts did not make it to final consideration, including Houston, Spring Branch and Austin ISD.

In previous versions of the program, the Department of Education evaluated states’ applications based on 19 criteria, including adoption of the “common core” standards developed by the National Governors Association in conjunction with the Obama administration in 2009. Implementation of common core curriculum standards — which wasn’t a prerequisite for applying, but it put the states that hadn’t adopted them at a competitive disadvantage — became the primary reason behind Perry’s decision not to apply for the money during the first competition.

Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Perry, said he maintains his concern that districts receiving the grants would be “saddled with additional burdens required by the federal government on top of having to continue adhering to state education standards.” By allowing schools to circumvent state governments in applying for the federal program, she said, the administration has “made it clear that it would go to any lengths to undermine our 10th Amendment rights and refused to accept the fact that Texas has no interest and no need to subscribe to its misguided, one-size-fits-all policies.”

For this latest round of grants, available to schools made up of at least 40 percent low-income students, adoption of common core standards is not weighed as a factor. Applicants are instead judged on their plans to personalize student learning and implement performance evaluation systems for teachers, principals and superintendents, and their commitment to career and college ready-standards.

Administrators at both Uplift and Galveston ISD said their applications were natural extensions of the work they had been doing on their own.

“We are constantly looking for ways to meet our essential goal, which is access and success in order to close the achievement gap,” said Michael Terry, a spokesman for Uplift. “For us that means pursuing every available resource possible from the best people, from funding sources private or public. It makes sense for us because of the way the Race for the Top request was structured, it asks for what we do.”

Texas Tribune donors or members may be quoted or mentioned in our stories, or may be the subject of them. For a complete list of contributors, click here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at http://www.texastribune.org/texas-education/public-education/texas-schools-advance-federal-contest-perry-reject/.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Texas High School Graduation Rates Among Highest in U.S.

Graphic courtesy of Todd Wiseman

New preliminary data released by the U.S. Department of Education shows that Texas — along with five other states — ranks fourth in the nation for its four-year high school graduation rates. With an overall rate of 86 percent in the 2010-11 school year, the state follows Iowa, with 88 percent, and Wisconsin and Vermont, both at 87 percent.

It’s the first time all states have used a common measure that the department developed in response to federal regulations passed in 2008.

The state’s graduation rates also fared well compared to others across most student demographics. For African-American students, it tied for first place with Montana at 81 percent. When it came to Hispanic students, Texas reported an 82 percent graduation rate, making it second in the country, behind Maine. The state was near the national median in graduating students with limited English proficiency, ranking 25th, with a 58 percent graduation rate.

The new numbers come after several years of steadily climbing graduation rates. In August, the Texas Education Agency reported that the state’s on-time high school graduation rate had reached an all-time high, increasing 1.6 percentage points to 85.9 percent for the class of 2011. Though anecdotal evidence suggests the success is partly due to a variety of programs on the state and district level, it is difficult to measure the effect of external factors like the poor economy — which tends to keep students in school because they feel the pull of the job market less — and shifting state accountability requirements.

In the past, the state has faced criticism for its method of reporting graduation rates. After research from Harvard University, the University of Texas at Austin and Rice University showed in 2006 that the state was inflating its graduation numbers in several ways, including the exclusion of students who left school to take the GED. But since then, the state has used the federal definition from the National Center for Education Statistics to measure dropout rates.

“This state-by-state comparison confirms what Texas educators have been saying for a long time,” Texas Commissioner of Education Michael L. Williams said in a statement. “Our public schools are delivering a high quality education and our students are having great success.”

Texas Tribune donors or members may be quoted or mentioned in our stories, or may be the subject of them. For a complete list of contributors, click here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at http://www.texastribune.org/texas-education/public-education/us-dept-ed-texas-has-3rd-highest-graduation-rate/.

Enhanced by Zemanta