A Latina/o K-12 and Higher Education Policy Agenda in Texas

© Senate Hispanic Caucus/Mexican American Legislative Caucus' Latina/o Education Task Force

1

A Latina/o K-‐12 and Higher Education Policy Agenda in Texas

A Report of the Senate Hispanic Caucus and Mexican American Legislative Caucus Latina/o Education Task Force

July 9, 2014

Patricia D. López, Ph.D. Principal Investigator Task Force Co-‐chair

Celina Moreno

Task Force Co-‐chair


2


3

Executive Summary

The Latina/o Education Task Force Policy Agenda reflects the collective input from 70 local, state, and national organizations. Task Force participants are engaged in the education of Latina/o students as teachers, administrators, researchers, litigators, elected officials, and community-‐based advocates. Using a three-‐step data collection process and multi-‐step data analysis, participating organizations provided detailed input and directions for state policymakers interested in advancing a much-‐needed paradigm shift in public and higher education policy for Latina/o communities in Texas. In addition to participant data, this Agenda recognizes bodies of scholarly research that are often left out of “color blind” analyses and policy discourses that consequently dominate education policy debates and thwart optimum possibilities for serving Latina/o communities. School Finance: The Latina/o Education Task Force rank public school finance as the top issue impacting the education of Latina/o students. Participants identified several aspects of school finance, from the 2011 budget cuts to funding weights that address add-‐on costs needed to serve special populations. Even with a partial restoration of the 2011 budget cuts during the 2013 session—falling $2 billion short of the 2011 cuts —Texas ranked 46th in per-‐pupil spending in 2013-‐14.i Teaching Quality: Teaching quality is a top school-‐based factor associated with students’ educational experiences, achievement, graduation rates, and college eligibility. According to Task Force participants, addressing teaching quality for Latina/o students begins with: ending high-‐stakes testing; supporting instructional best practices and culturally-‐relevant curriculum; ensuring that all teacher candidates have the preparation needed to teach Latina/o and bilingual students; and increasing the representation of well-‐prepared teachers, support staff, and administrators, and supporting their ongoing professional development. Access to Public Education Curriculum: Among Education Task Force participants, access to public education curriculum center on issues of bilingual education, curriculum and texts that acknowledge the contributions of underrepresented groups (e.g., Mexican American Studies), and policy agendas that hinder Latina/o students’ access to courses that will leave them eligible for college. Participating organizations’ historic concerns over tracking—where schools label some students as college material and limit the career and college options of others—remains a top concern. The Task Force’s teacher participants note the important relationship between teaching quality, curricular materials and culturally relevant pedagogy, and the need to address the growing demand for bilingual and biliterate, well-‐prepared teachers.


4

Parent and Community Engagement: Participating organizations’ concern for greater parent and community authority diverge from parent empowerment schemes often used to advance privatization agendas at the expense of diminishing support for public neighborhood schools. Rather, our participating organizations call for schools to honor parents’ rights to equal protection and representation, regardless of native language or socioeconomic status; provide resources to establish committee structures that tap into the strengths of Latina/o communities; and afford parents greater roles in decision-‐making opportunities. Achieving these needs do not require that neighborhood schools be handed over to corporate providers. School and District Accountability: Education Task Force participants demand a long-‐overdue paradigm shift in the state’s approach to school and district accountability. That shift begins with decoupling school and district accountability with high-‐stakes testing and their consequences for students. The Task Force also calls for an end to the perpetual use of accountability systems to demonize public education and support for school closures or other punitive measures. Our participants overwhelmingly equate holding schools accountable to the need for addressing key aspects of the educational pipeline such as: persistent dropout rates; the shortcomings of schools to serve the needs of emergent bilingualii students; and excessive amounts of instructional resources diverted to test preparation. High-‐stakes Testing and Student Assessment: The Latina/o Education Task Force participants overwhelmingly express the need for Texas to break its long-‐standing investment in high-‐stakes testing and the stronghold that the testing lobby has on student assessment policy across the state. To end high-‐stakes testing does not mean doing away with testing altogether. Rather, testing needs to be put in its place and serve as the diagnostic tool it was designed to perform. At a time when state and local policies claim to want more dynamic and applied instruction—where project-‐based teaching and learning are the goals—the State must lead in a serious conversation on student performance assessments that do in fact focus on that vision. Preserving Public Education: The Latina/o Education Task Force advocates for investment in public education, not a diversion of public funds to schools unaccountable to publicly elected governing boards and that are allowed to operate outside of regulations applicable to public schools. There is no reliable data showing a consistent pattern of success of school privatization efforts, nor is there evidence that diverting public funds in that manner strengthens the public education system that serves the vast majority of Texas schoolchildren.


5

Access to Higher Education: The Latina/o Education Task Force rank access to higher education as the top higher education issue facing Latina/o students. As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court, a “path to leadership [must] be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity” for future leaders to have “legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry.”iii These sentiments embody the Task Force’s desire for state leaders to call for increased access to higher education as reflected in admissions policies, greater college affordability, and more collaboration with K-‐12 educators to ensure college aspirations and preparedness are, in fact, attainable for all students. Student Retention and Completion in Higher Education: Task Force participants find problematic the amount of debt that students accrue and the frequency of tuition hikes during a students’ pursuit of an undergraduate degree. These recurring comments point back to the need to address the financial aspects that remain relevant to student retention and completion. Participants also acknowledged that these concerns are interrelated to: issues of higher education access such as affordability, availability of student financial aid, and high school preparedness; students’ accessibility to Latina/o faculty; campus climate; and a rising use of high-‐stakes testing at the undergraduate level for entrance into certain college majors. Campus and University Climate: Task Force participants identify issues related to college and university campus climate as a top higher education issue. Key campus climate issues include: student diversity levels; representation, or lack thereof, of Latina/o faculty, staff, and leadership; anti-‐immigrant sentiments; physical and sexual assaults; student-‐themed parties based on racist stereotypes; harassment based on sexual orientation; and derogatory and insensitive faculty commentary. Research-‐based approaches contend that campus climate grievances cannot be viewed by universities in isolation but in light of: (1) an institution's historical legacy of inclusion or exclusion of various racial/ethnic groups; (2) its structural diversity, or the numerical representation of various racial/ethnic groups; (3) the psychological climate of perceptions and attitudes between and among groups; and (4) the behavioral climate of campus intergroup relations.iv Funding, Capacity, and Expansion of Higher Education: The Latina/o Education Task Force prioritizes current higher education funding, capacity and, the need to expand higher education to serve Latina/o students. Specifically, organizations put the long-‐overdue need to increase the number of public, flagship universities at the top of the list. Participants further highlight concerns related to: the growing reduction in tenure-‐track positions and increase in exploitative non-‐tenure track lecturer positions; the state’s continued underfunding of higher education; and anti-‐intellectualism discourse that diminishes the value and contributions of research faculty.


6


7

Acknowledgements First, we thank the Senate Hispanic Caucus (SHC) and Mexican American Legislative Caucus (MALC) leadership: Chairman José Rodríguez, Chairman Trey Martínez Fischer, and Vice Chairwoman Sylvia García. We are also grateful to Luis Figueroa and Summer Luciano for your support. Many thanks to Dr. María “Cuca” Robledo Montecel and Dr. Albert Cortez for your invaluable guidance and expertise, and to our research assistants, Brenda O. Fuentes and Samantha Robles, for your time and dedication to this project. Finally, a special thank you to our participating organizations: American Latino Center for Research, Education & Justice; Austin Association for Bilingual Education; Austin Interfaith; Bilingual Education Association of the Metroplex (Dallas); Bilingual Education Student Organization (BESO); Corpus Christi Area Association for Bilingual Education; Devine Educational Services; Dr. Hector P. Garcia American GI Forum of Texas; Future United Leaders for Change; Harlandale Association for Bilingual Education; Hermanos de East Austin; Hispanic Advocates Business Leaders of Austin (HABLA); Hispanic Women’s Network of Texas; Hombres Unidos; Houston Area Association for Bilingual Education; Huntington Learning Center; Intercultural Development and Research Association (IDRA); Texas State LULAC; LULAC District 7 (Austin); LULAC District 3 (Dallas); LULAC District 4 (El Paso); LULAC District 21(Fort Worth); LULAC District 8 (Houston); LULAC District 6 (Odessa); LULAC Council 649 (San Antonio); LULAC Council 4260 (San Antonio); LULAC Council 4317 (San Antonio); LULAC Council 4359 (San Antonio); LULAC Council 4994 (San Antonio); LULAC District 9 (San Angelo); LULAC District 2 (Seguin); LULAC District 10 (Victoria); Longhorn LULAC (Austin); Latin American and Hispanic Master in Business Association (LAHMBA); Lubbock Area Association for Bilingual Education; Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF); Mexican-‐American School Board Members Association (MASBA); Midland Association for Bilingual Education; National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE); National Association for Chicana and Chicano Studies (NACCS), Tejas Foco; National Council of La Raza (NCLR); ¡PRESENTE!; Rio Grande Valley Coalition for Border Studies and Mexican American Studies; Rio Grande Valley Association for Bilingual Education; Rio Grande Valley Equal Voices Network; Reform Immigration for Texas Alliance (RITA); San Antonio Area Association for Bilingual Education; San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Somos MAS; Southwest Area Association for Bilingual Education; Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; Suburban Houston Association for Bilingual Education; Texas A&M Students on Latino Affairs; Texas American Federation of Teachers (AFT); Texas Association for Bilingual Education (TABE); Texas Association for Chicanos in Higher Education (TACHE); Texas Association of Mexican American Chambers of Commerce (TAMACC); Texas Hispanics Organizing for Political Education (HOPE); UTSA Center for Cultural Sustainability; West Texas Association for Bilingual Education; William C. Velasquez Institute (WCVI). Participants from the following school districts and institutions of higher education were also represented: Alamo Colleges; Austin Independent School District; Lee College; Palo Alto College; South Texas College; Texas A&M University, College Station; Texas A&M University, San Antonio; Texas State University, San Marcos; University of Texas at Austin; University of Texas at El Paso; University of Texas at San Antonio. Without all of you, none of this would be possible. ¡Muchísimas Gracias!


8


9

ABOUT THE RESEARCH PROCESS The Task Force research process began by re-‐convening those organizations who attended the October 18-‐19, 2013, Latino Policy Summit and self-‐selected to participate in the Latina/o Education Task Force. Quickly thereafter, broader local, state, and national Latina/o organizations that did not attend the Summit were invited to participate. The sample quickly grew to 70 organizations. Of the 70 participating organizations, data were collected from 13 local bilingual education member organizations representing 128 bilingual teacher respondents (see Appendix 2). In order to obtain a statewide reach, an open-‐ended survey was developed that allowed organizations to identify the top pressing public and higher education issues. In some instances, some responses were as short as a single statement but many more were quite lengthy and contextualized. After the open-‐ended survey, follow-‐up conversations were scheduled to gain clarity and greater detail on the core concerns and policy directions among participants. Initial, open-‐ended survey responses were coded using a three-‐step process that helped us to arrive at eleven overarching, generative themes—seven themes in public education and four in higher education (see Appendices 1 and 2). The final stage consisted of a structured survey where participants provided definitive positions on issues and policy directions and, in some cases, posed questions where further deliberations are needed. The final corroboration stage helped to triangulate the analysis of data at the same time that it instilled a sense of ownership over the final Task Force Policy Directions outlined in this Policy Agenda. Over the course of the research process, a total of three Task Force conference calls were held where participants were provided an update on preliminary findings and an opportunity to engage in open dialogue. FOR QUESTIONS REGARDING RESEARCH METHODS AND DATA PLEASE CONTACT: PATRICIA D. LÓPEZ, PH.D., PRIMARY INVESTIGATOR AND TASK FORCE CO-‐CHAIR AT: [email protected]


10


11

SCHOOL FINANCE

The Latina/o Education Task Force participants rank public school finance as a top issue impacting the education of Latina/o students. Participants identify several aspects of school funding, from the 2011 budget cuts to program weights that address add-‐on costs needed to serve special populations. With only a partial restoration of the 2011 budget cuts during the 2013 session—falling $2 billion short of the 2011 cuts —Texas ranked 46th in per-‐pupil spending in 2013-‐14.v Additional funds restored in 2013 served, at best, as a “Band-‐Aid” to dress a gaping wound in our public schools. That vain attempt has left classrooms hurting for necessary resources and will not improve the quality of education without addressing the fundamental flaws in how the state funds its schools. Schools in Texas rely heavily on local property taxes, which vary greatly across Texas. The poorest decile of districts has a property wealth per weighted average daily attendance of $73,140 compared to almost $1 million for the wealthiest decile. The poorest 10 percent of districts collect an average of 10 cents more per $100 of property valuation in taxes than the wealthiest 10 percent. Despite such tax efforts, per-‐student funding gaps persist. Even with recapture and with a 10-‐cent tax cut, the districts in the wealthiest decile enjoy a $951 per-‐student advantage—a difference of hundreds of thousands of dollars per school.vi Texas’ school finance scheme has more to do with what is “above or below the ground on which the districts sit,” such as oil or high value property, than with what tools are required to meet state expectations. Districts have been forced to cut teaching positions and local programs, against the best educational interests of students and without regard for college and career readiness standards—now the operational expectation of Texas’ school system. According to our participant data, budget cuts resulted in regressive practices such as increasing class sizes, cutting pre-‐K programs, and reducing the representation of experienced bilingual teachers who cost more to keep. Those “cost-‐cutting” decisions are examples of educational backsliding that undermine research-‐based best practices. Districts remain unable to close gaps between emergent bilingual and non-‐emergent bilingual (i.e., non-‐ELL) students as well as low-‐income students and their counterparts, in part, because Texas still uses arbitrary weights that have not changed since 1984 to serve those students. At that time, experts from the Intercultural Development Research Association presented research that emergent bilingual and compensatory education programs cost an average of 40 percent more than a district’s regular program costs. Rather than adopting a 0.4 weight, the state opted for a 0.1 add-‐on for bilingual/ESL programs and a 0.2 add-‐on for compensatory education programs. The outmoded weights remain the status quo and are particularly counterproductive at a time when these special student populations are increasing in number (i.e., over 869,000 ELL students and over 3 million economically disadvantaged students) and proportion (i.e., 17.1% ELL and over 60% economically disadvantaged students) [TEA, 2013]. That is also true at a time when the need for high-‐quality instruction and interventions, for those at-‐risk students in particular, and the academic expectations for all students, in general, have increased. The state’s Cost of Education Index (CEI)—which informs adjustments needed in funding based on variations in cost of living, district size, and regional teacher salaries—is similarly outdated, as it has not been changed since 1990.


12

For the aforementioned and other reasons, Judge John Dietz issued a preliminary bench ruling in February 2013 that Texas’ school funding system is unconstitutionally inadequate for emergent bilingual and economically disadvantaged students, inadequate for school districts more generally, inequitable for low-‐property wealth districts, and that many school districts lack meaningful discretion in setting tax rates. After hearing additional evidence based on statutory changes made during the 2013 session, Judge Dietz is expected to issue a final written ruling before the beginning of the 2015 legislative session. Texas must afford its children who live in property-‐poor school districts and those who live in

property-‐rich school districts substantially equally access to educational funds. Task Force Policy Directions • All children should have an equal right to resources like quality academic instruction,

well-‐conditioned facilities, extracurricular activities, and technology so they can succeed academically and become productive members of society.

• Public schools should have adequate funding, based on actual costs, to provide quality summer school (including transportation), extended day programs, after-‐school tutoring and enrichment, and college preparation opportunities.

• Students in property-‐wealthy districts should not continue to access substantially greater resources at lower tax effort than students in property-‐poor districts.

• In using dollars from the expected state surplus, the Legislature must prioritize investment in public school funding, rather than appropriate funds for education on a “funds-‐left-‐over” basis.

• Texas must stop privatization experimental efforts such as corporate charter schools, Home Rule charter districts, vouchers, and full-‐time virtual schooling that divert public education funds from publicly accountable, neighborhood public schools.

• The Legislature should, at minimum, fully restore budget cuts from the 2011 legislative session, accounting for inflation and growth in student enrollment.

• Texas should conduct studies of additional costs associated with new state standards, curriculum requirements, and instructional needs and adjust its funding accordingly.

• All state funding should be run through state property wealth-‐based formulae, and all hold harmless mechanisms (i.e., Target Revenue) previously adopted to cushion the impact of past equalization reforms should be phased out within two years.

• Texas must increase the funding weights for emergent bilingual and economically disadvantaged students and base those weights on actual costs of successful programs, as determined by a cost-‐study reflective of reliable, peer-‐reviewed and/or expert practitioners’ research. In the interim, said weights should conform to earlier research estimates and reflect a minimum 40 percent add-‐on funding.

• The state should update its Cost of Education Index (CEI) study to reflect current local and regional variances in operational costs, and require an update every four years. The Texas Legislature must act decisively to fix Texas’ school finance system, regardless of

whether the school funding case is pending a decision on appeal.


13

TEACHING QUALITY Teaching quality is a top school-‐based factor associated with students’ educational experiences, achievement, graduation rates, and college eligibility. According to Latina/o Task Force participants, addressing teaching quality for Latina/o students begins with: ending high-‐stakes testing; supporting instructional best practices and culturally-‐relevant curriculum; ensuring that all teacher candidates have the preparation needed to teach Latina/o and bilingual students; and increasing the representation of well-‐prepared teachers, support staff, and administrators, and supporting their ongoing professional development.

Task Force participants’ concerns for disparate representations of Latina/o teachers acknowledged economic and democratic imperatives,vii as well as educational benefits that decades of research show well-‐prepared Latina/o teachers—particularly those who are bilingual and biliterate—bring to classrooms and overall educational experiences of Latina/o students. For example: • Well-‐prepared Latina/o teachers have been associated with higher graduation levels,

lower dropout rates, advanced-‐level course enrollment, and increased college eligibility and enrollment rates among Latina/o students;viii

• Well-‐prepared Latina/o teachers are more likely to teach in harder-‐to-‐staff urban schools that serve the overwhelming majority of Latina/o students;ix

• Latina/o teachers are more likely to share similar cultural, linguistic, and educational backgrounds as Latina/o students leading to them being more likely to: value Latina/o students’ “funds of knowledge,”x participate in consistent and implicit affirmation and reinforcement of the Latino students’ educational and life aspirations;xi posses a greater capacity to draw from Latina/o students’ cultural frames of reference to make the learning process meaningful and develop positive teacher-‐student relationships.xii

• Latina/o teachers are found to view Latina/o more favorably.xiii

While research highlights the favorable results and possibilities that Latina/o teachers bring to the educational pipeline, recent data shows that in Texas, Latina/os pale in comparison to whites in the professional teaching labor market (also see Appendix 4):

Source: Texas Education Agency (2013)


14

Task Force Policy Directions

• All Texas students should have access to culturally and linguistically competent teachers and administrators.

• Quality teaching for Latina/o students is more than mere cultural recognition; it involves pedagogy, or the ability to connect content objectives to the “funds of knowledge” and experiences of multicultural students to enhance learning.

• Quality teaching for Latina/o and emergent bilingual students begins with supervised programs based on proven instructional methodologies.

• Quality teaching means that teachers are prepared, supported, and trusted to assess student performance in their classrooms.

• Addressing teaching quality must include a conversation to end high-‐stakes testing, reduce the focus on "teaching to a test,” and expanding teachers’ capacity to assess student learning.

• Addressing quality teaching means that the State must require classrooms to have fully certified teachers with academic and social competencies to ensure that all students reach their optimal potential.

• The state must invest additional resources to expand the capacity of teacher preparation programs that are interdisciplinary and engage teacher candidates with the cultural and linguistic resources to meet the needs of multicultural communities, particularly emergent bilingual students, should be better supported.

• There must be an equitable distribution of high-‐quality teaching across and within schools. The state should create reassignment incentives and provide additional professional support to help with that distribution.

• All incoming teachers serving emergent bilingual students—including teachers of core content area courses—should, at minimum, complete six semester credit hours of higher education coursework in ESL methodology, or the equivalent professional development in sheltered instruction by the end of their second year in the classroom.

• All teachers and administrators serving emergent bilingual students should be required to undergo ongoing professional development.

“Texas must act decisively to address the critical shortage of bilingual certified teachers to properly serve the substantial and growing emergent bilingual student population in Texas.”


15

ACCESS TO PUBLIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM Latina/o Education Task Force participants identify access to public education curriculum as a top issue. The most common concerns relate to bilingual education and policy agendas that hinder Latina/o students’ access to courses that will leave them eligible for college. Participating organizations’ historic concerns over tracking—where schools label some students as college material and limit the career and college options of others—remains a top concern, particularly in the wake of recent curriculum development changes made by House Bill 5. Specifically, HB 5 allows for the adoption of high school courses outside of a systemic alignment with higher education. In fact, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) itself warned of potential college transition problems that HB 5 may pose, especially to low-‐income and first-‐generation college students.xiv Many Task Force participants also remain concerned that the availability of the endorsements across districts, as well as the variance in the quality of those endorsements offered across and within districts, will largely reflect the striking disparities already seen in school districts’ available resources. Among the Task Force’s teacher participants, there are numerous mentions pointing to the important relationship between curricular materials, teaching quality and culturally relevant pedagogy (see Teaching Quality section) and the need to address the growing demand for bilingual and biliterate, well-‐prepared teachers. These participants highlight access to curriculum being related to a need for: materials that build literacy skills at all levels and across all subject areas; Spanish-‐language materials at all grade levels; access to “college knowledge” (e.g. career plans, college curriculum, college prep materials, internship opportunities); curriculum and texts that acknowledge the contributions of underrepresented groups (e.g., Mexican American Studies); and curriculum that inspires a love for learning and a positive self-‐identity, encourages critical-‐thinking skills, and promotes conscientiousness.

“The State must ensure that its public education system is not a mechanism to track some

students toward college, and others into low-‐wage jobs.”


• Texas public schools should provide all students with access to college-‐ready curriculum.

• The State must direct TEA and THECB to work together to ensure alignment between high school graduation requirements and college admissions requirements.

• Trade and technical programs within the K-‐12 context should be optional and viewed as supplemental in nature, not as a replacement for curriculum that provides all students a fair opportunity to attend college.

• The state should increase equity in the availability of high-‐school endorsement and dual-‐credit course options across public high schools.

• All students should be exposed to curriculum and texts that acknowledge the contributions of historically underrepresented communities.


16

• The State must direct the Texas Education Agency and the Higher Education Coordinating Board to work together to ensure alignment between high school graduation requirements and college admissions requirements.

• Texas should provide funds for culturally-‐relevant and -‐inclusive curriculum and texts.

• The State must provide funds for bilingual materials and Spanish-‐language resources.

• The Texas Legislature should for a K-‐20 Subcommittee in each chamber or as a Joint Committee to ensure alignment and students’ smooth transition from high school to college.


17

PARENT AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The Education Task Force’s concerns around parent and community engagement center on: schools’ lack of coordination with community-‐based efforts; insufficient resources to keep parents and communities apprised of changing state and local mandates or college requisites; and the underrepresentation of Latinas/os in education decision making (e.g., at the administrative, advisory boards, and school boards levels). Participating organizations’ concern for greater parent and community authority diverge from parent empowerment schemes often used to advance privatization agendas at the expense of diminishing support for public neighborhood schools. Rather, our participating organizations called for schools to honor parents’ rights to equal protection and representation, regardless of native language or socioeconomic status; provide resources to establish committee structures that tap into the strengths of Latina/o communities; and afford parents greater roles in decision-‐making opportunities. Achieving these needs do not require that neighborhood schools be handed over to corporate providers. Not a single teacher participant listed a lack of parental engagement as a pressing issue. Rather, they focus on structural shortcomings that reduce parents’ accessibility to schools, such as: insufficient resources; unwelcoming school climates; and an oft-‐lacking number of bilingual personnel and outreach efforts. These teachers’ responses depart from common teacher narratives and research that perpetuate deficit myths claiming that Latina/o and low-‐income parents do not care about the education of their childrenxv and subsequently assign culpability for student and educational challenges to parental shortcomings. By placing a greater importance on school-‐based issues, our participating teachers show a sense of ownership over making schools work for students, parents, and families. That Latina/o families do not care about their children’s education is a myth; parents seek transparency and respect from educators and to work collaboratively to improve education. Task Force Policy Directions

• The diversity of actors—i.e., teachers, administrators, boards and committee members— in Texas' educational system should better reflect the demographics of the state.

• Students, parents, and communities need to have more input on how the education they receive impacts them and reverse their limited authority in school and district infrastructures.

• For many Latina/o parents, the structure of the traditional Parent Teacher Associations is not always sufficient to meaningful engage parents who have been previously excluded or underserved by that model.

• Texas should invest in families by replicating successful parent peer organizing models, for example:

o Parent peer organizing models that support promotoras—volunteer community liaisons who engage other families to improve schools and help increase families’ access to local community and school resources. One such


18

as IDRA’s PTA Comunitario model, already effective in Texas’ poorest neighborhoods.

o The parent-‐run Salas Comunitarias (Community Living Rooms),xvi which serve as safe spaces in schools and launch pads for parent participation.

o University-‐community, after-‐school collaborations such as La Clase Mágicaxvii (already implemented in some San Antonio school districts), which are supported by decades of empirical research discussing the benefits of engaging parents of English language learners and using technology to increase biliteracy and critical thinking schools.


19

SCHOOL AND DISTRICT ACCOUNTABILITY The Latina/o Education Task Force participants demand a long-‐overdue paradigm shift in the state’s approach to school and district accountability. That shift begins with decoupling school and district accountability with high-‐stakes testing and their consequences for students. The Task Force also calls for an end to the perpetual use of accountability systems to demonize public education and support for school closures or other punitive measures. Our participants overwhelmingly equate holding schools accountable to the need for addressing key aspects of the educational pipeline such as: persistent dropout rates; excessive amounts of instructional resources diverted to test preparation; and the shortcomings of schools to serve the needs of emergent bilingual students. Participants also call for more financial responsibility to ensure that monies for specific populations, services, and classroom teachers are, in fact, directed toward their intended purpose.

The State has failed to effectively monitor and supervise its bilingual and ESL programs, particularly at the middle and high school levels.

Some presume that fixing the accountability system simply means shifting the authority from the state to local districts to identify accountability indicators and rate schools. However, Task Force participants do not merely call for the decentralization of the current statewide accountability system but rather for a transformation of what comprises that system. Participants echo what research has long named as the institutional factors that inform quality public schools, such as: teaching quality; student and community engagement; access to quality curriculum; student and teacher retention rates; and high school graduation rates.xviii Research similarly concludes how punitive accountability systems, similar to the one in Texas that deprive students of resources during times of greatest needs, do not result in school “turn around” or an improved capacity to serve students.xix As the state continues developing its multiple measures accountability system it is important to remain mindful of important structural factors that inform the “holding power”xx of schools and access to educational equity for all students. Task Force Policy Directions

• The State must increase equity in the availability of high-‐school endorsement and dual-‐credit course options across public high schools.

• The State must monitor the quality of applied and locally-‐developed courses to ensure students' eligibility to Texas and out-‐of-‐state colleges and universities.

• Texas should monitor the extent to which students opt out of the “Foundation plus Endorsement” default high school curriculum plan to the Foundation plan.

• The State should conduct a detailed analysis to determine differences in the number of endorsements offered and quality of curriculum offerings among and within districts.


20

• The State must lead with an accountability system that places a greater focus on the resources and the “holding power” of schools.

• The State should increase transparency by closing loopholes in the state’s “leaver code” system, thereby preventing districts from masking dropout counts.

• State intervention monitors of Texas bilingual and ESL programs must be required to have bilingual and ESL certification.

• The state should monitor language programs not only at the district-‐level, but also at the campus level, thus preventing successful bilingual programs in elementary schools to mask failing ESL programs in secondary schools.


21

HIGH-‐STAKES TESTING AND STUDENT ASSESSMENT The Latina/o Education Task Force participants overwhelmingly expressed the need for Texas to break its long-‐standing investment in high-‐stakes testing and the stronghold that the testing lobby has on student assessment policy across the state. To end high-‐stakes testing does not mean doing away with testing altogether. Rather, testing needs to be put in its place and serve as the diagnostic tool it was designed to perform. At a time when state and local policies claim to want more dynamic and applied instruction—where project-‐based teaching and learning are the goals—the State must lead in a serious conversation on student performance assessments that do in fact focus on that vision. Our participants echo the various ways in which high-‐stakes testing contribute to major fractures in the educational pipeline, such as: narrowing of curriculum; teaching to the test; pushing out students with poor test results in order to boost ratings; and turning classrooms into alienating test-‐prep laboratories. Finally, Task Force participants call for fair assessments for emergent bilingual students that allow teachers to focus on proven instructional methods that lead to biliteracy. Current assessments are depriving emergent bilingual students from building important literacy skills due to the overemphasis on acquiring English at a hasty pace that does not conform to the timeline that research shows is needed to learn a second language at an academic level.

“No single measure or standardized test should be used determine grade promotion or high school graduation.”


• High-‐stakes testing obstructs students’ access to quality learning time and diverts precious dollars and resources (e.g., teacher and staff time) to testing companies.

• The misuses of state-‐mandated testing are both unethical and unsupported by research, and disproportionately impact poor, minority, and emergent bilingual students, as well as those students receiving special education services.

• Focusing on student test performance does not lead to a deeper understanding of the curriculum.

• In a student assessment system that moves away from a sole reliance on high-‐stakes testing, high school graduation standards would consist of the following requirements for receiving a Texas high school diploma:

o Course grades and overall GPA; o Student evaluations by teachers; o Student portfolios; o School attendance; and o Students’ contributions to their school and community.

• Texas should use standardized testing for diagnostic purposes and to trigger the focus of resources to support student achievement.


22

• The State must lead in a serious conversation on student performance assessments that have been shown to work in other states with large and diverse student populations.xxi

• In moving to a genuine multiple-‐criteria assessment system, the State must invest in teacher preparation and professional development supports that allow for effective implementation.

• The state should study the feasibility of using sample-‐testing methodology, with data disaggregated by major subgroup.

Task Force participants call on Senate Hispanic Caucus and Mexican American Legislative Caucus members to draft and endorse a resolution to end high-‐stakes testing in Texas.


23

PRESERVING PUBLIC EDUCATION The Latina/o Education Task Force advocates for investment in public education, not a diversion of public funds to schools unaccountable to publicly-‐elected governing boards and that are allowed to operate outside of regulations applicable to public schools. There is no reliable data showing a consistent pattern of success of school privatization efforts, nor is there evidence that diverting public funds in that manner strengthens the public education system that serves the vast majority of Texas schoolchildren. Across all participant responses, no organization cited the need to increase agendas such as school vouchers, Home Rule policies, virtual schooling, or lifting the cap on charter expansion as methods for improving educational equity. Some of our participating organizations are affiliated with neighborhood charter schools, but none of them identified current limits on charter expansion as a pressing issue. In fact, these few called for greater accountability for all charter entities, particularly those operated by outside corporations. Charter-‐affiliates also expressed a general concern for the influx of corporate charters that are detached from the history and needs of local communities and premised on promoting choice and a consequential shift away from support for public education. As committed supporters of public education, our participants cite the clear distinction between their intended purpose to work with districts to improve the organization and practices of traditional public schools versus the interests of corporate charters. The Texas Legislature’s role in preserving public education consists of fairly distributing funds to public schools, not draining such resources to support unproven privatization experiments. Task Force Policy Directions

• Corporate charter schools should be subject to the same accountability standards as traditional public schools.

• The State should revisit its Home Rule policies that allow school boards to convert an entire district to a charter school format, thereby exempting them from state provisions such as teacher contract requirements and student discipline regulations.

• Full-‐time virtual schools, which generally have high teacher-‐student ratios, result in poor student performance.

• The State should maintain its cap that limits the further expansion of corporate charter schools in Texas.

• The State should resist voucher policies, such as "Tax Credit Scholarships." • Legislators should not authorize the expansion of full-‐time virtual schooling. • Texas should require charters campuses to elect local representatives that will play

a role in oversight and governance of those schools.


24


25

ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION The Latina/o Education Task Force rank access to higher education as the top higher education issue facing Latina/o students. As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court, a “path to leadership [must] be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity” for future leaders to have “legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry.”xxii Those sentiments embody the Task Force’s desire for state leaders to call for increased access to higher education as reflected in admissions policies, greater college affordability, and more collaboration with K-‐12 educators to ensure college aspirations and preparedness are, in fact, attainable for all students. Racial and ethnic diversity in college remains a priority. Student diversity is critical so future state leaders’ ability to debate issues outside of a “bubble” and with the benefit of multicultural perspectives. Such discourse is particularly important, given the alarming segregation of Texas public schools (e.g., less than 1 in 5 white students attends the school of a typical Latino).xxiii To improve college affordability, participants called for a return to tuition regulation, additional need-‐based Texas GRANT funding, and reauthorization of loan forgiveness programs such as the Doctoral Incentive Loan Repayment Program. Tuition deregulation has incited barriers to accessing higher education for Latina/o students. In a span of only eight years, since the state deregulated tuition in 2003, the average cost of tuition at Texas public universities increased 90 percent.xxiv No upper limit exists on the amount of tuition a university can charge. Moreover, the Legislature has failed over the last few legislative sessions to distribute funds collected by the state’s Doctoral Incentive Loan Repayment Program, intended to increase the affordability of graduate school for underrepresented groups. Participants emphasized the influence of that student pipeline on the diversity of the faculty pipeline. The Task Force also articulates the need to keep Texas’ blended approach for admissions policies —one that incorporates the Texas Top Percent Plan (TTPP) and the use of race as a limited factor in admissions decisions. Students admitted under the TTPP have higher grade point averages (GPAs) and graduation rates and take less time to graduate than non-‐TTPP admits.xxv The TTPP is crucial to racial/ethnic, socio-‐economic, and geographical diversity, particularly at the University of Texas—one of the state’s two top-‐tier institutions. “Open admissions” plans, by overemphasizing standardized test scores, often overlook academically promising minority and low-‐income students who consistently score lower than white students on college board tests. show strong potential, but lack the requisite scores. The TTPP helps compensate for such overemphasis and acknowledges that those who cannot pay for SAT enrichment courses or tutors must compete with those who can. Despite the importance of the TTPP, the State has made statutory changes that pose barriers to TTPP eligibility. For example, the Legislature has deemphasized the importance of Algebra II in the required high school curriculum. By removing that course from the default high school graduation plans, Texas students must now affirmatively opt into, rather than opt out of taking Algebra II at the same time the state still legislates Algebra II as a non-‐negotiable requirement for eligibility into the TTPP, and most in-‐ and out-‐of-‐state


26

four-‐year institutions require it for admission. Courses, such as Algebra II, that are no longer in the default high school curriculum are also prerequisites for many community college and career certification programs. By mandating a new K-‐12 curricular scheme without first ensuring alignment between high school and college curriculum, the State has exacerbated a historic college access concern.

TEXAS Grant funding should reflect the growing demographics of low-‐income students. Task Force Policy Directions

• College should be a realistic option for all Texans, regardless of race, geography or socio-‐economic background.

• Protecting access to Texas public universities requires institutions to consider race as a limited factor in admission decisions and to preserve the TTPP.

• Guard against any attempts to repeal or weaken the TTPP. • All qualified students must have an equal opportunity to attend Texas’ flagship

universities. • The State must ensure that colleges adjust their entrance requirements to better

align with the new high school graduation plans and coursework. • Dual credit programs between high schools and colleges are vital and contribute

significantly to student success in college. • Reauthorize and fund the Doctoral Incentive Loan Repayment Program. • Reject measures that seek to add so-‐called “merit-‐based” criteria to Texas GRANT

funding that disproportionately impacts Latina/o students. • Protect in-‐state tuition for eligible Texas high school graduates, regardless of

immigration status. • Reverse course on the tuition deregulation measures passed in 2003. • College affordability problems are not solved by cut-‐rate schemes such as “$10,000

diploma challenges” that raise quality and marketplace credibility concerns for students and whose costs may outweigh the benefits for institutions of higher education themselves.

Legislators must take back the responsibility they abdicated when Texas deregulated college tuition, effectively rubber stamping annual tuition hikes and placing higher education further out of reach for Latina/o students when workforce needs increasingly call for 4-‐year degrees.


27

FUNDING, CAPACITY, AND EXPANSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION The Latina/o Education Task Force draws attention to the need for more higher education funding, greater capacity, and the expansion higher education to serve Latina/o students. Specifically, organizations place the long overdue need to increase the number of public, flagship universities at the top of the list. Participants further highlight concerns related to the growing reduction in tenure-‐track positions and increase in exploitative non-‐tenure track lecturer positions, as well as anti-‐intellectualism discourse that unfairly diminishes the value and contributions of research faculty. To address those issues, participating organizations call for efforts such as: increased funding to higher education, generally, and greater supports for campuses identified as Hispanic Serving Institutions; funding support for Mexican American Studies Centers, Programs, and Departments; resources to ensure institutions keep pace with diversity needs relative to changing demographics; expanding the capacity of interdisciplinary and multicultural teacher certification programs to meet the diverse needs of Texas public school students and communities; and a “systemic circle of success” that brings school districts, colleges and universities, professional schools, and broader Latina/o communities together to address students’ needs. Task Force Policy Directions

• More funding is needed for two-‐ and four-‐year public college and university programs focused on student retention.

• Texas must address the lack of doctoral programs and law and medical schools in border cities.

• The State should expand the funding and resource capacity of Hispanic Serving Institutions.

• Funding support for Mexican American Studies Centers, Programs, and Departments must be a priority.

• The State should engage in a thorough study of current resource allocations to state and public colleges, student services, and graduate programs to determine equity issues in higher education.

• The State must lead in a conversation to commit resources and political will toward increasing the number of flagship institutions in Texas.


28


29

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY CAMPUS CLIMATE The Latina/o Education Task Force participants identify issues related to college and university campus climate as a top priority. While not part of mainstream discourses, research points to the relationship between the retention and academic achievements of Latina/os in higher education and the negative impacts of campuses that are characterized by a hostile racial climate.xxvi Latina/o students’ sense of belonging and willingness to stay in college are closely connected to: perceived racial conflict on their campuses; their sense of alienation; feelings of isolation; stereotyping; and micro-‐aggressions, that is, subtle verbal, nonverbal, and/or visual insults.xxvii Finally, these stressors have also been found to similarly impact graduate-‐level Latina/o students.xxviii According to participating organizations, key campus climate issues included: student diversity levels; representation, or lack thereof, of Latina/o faculty, staff, and leadership; anti-‐immigrant sentiments; physical and sexual assaults; student-‐themed parties based on racist stereotypes; harassment based on sexual orientation; and derogatory and insensitive faculty commentary. Research-‐based approaches contend that campus climate grievances cannot be viewed by universities in isolation but in light of: (1) an institution's historical legacy of inclusion or exclusion of various racial/ethnic groups; (2) its structural diversity, or the numerical representation of various racial/ethnic groups; (3) the psychological climate of perceptions and attitudes between and among groups; and (4) the behavioral climate of campus intergroup relations.xxix Similar to benefits of Latina/o teachers in K-‐12 education, research supports frequent Task Force responses related to Latina/o faculty and the role they play in Latina/o and minority student representation and retention in higher education.xxx However, recent data shows huge gaps in their representation:

Source: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Closing The Gaps Accountability System: Texas Public University Excellence Measures. Retrieved from: http://www.txhighereddata.org/Interactive/Accountability.


30

While research shows the various benefits that Latina/o faculty play—such as mentors, advisors, participants in campus diversity initiatives (e.g., campus climate teams)—these added roles are also found to interfere with the ability to advance and obtain tenure.xxxi This is particularly the case for Latinas, since they are more likely to take on these added responsibilities at the same time that their male and white peers do not.xxxii Accordingly, addressing the representation of Latina/o faculty must be accompanied by a conversation on various other intersecting factors, such as: the tenure review process; the value placed on service within and outside of the campus community; the added responsibilities that Latina/o faculty take on that subsequently contribute to Latina/o student retention; the advancement and persistence of Latina/o faculty in top administrative positions holding decision-‐making power. Finally, it is also important to underscore Task Force participants’ concerns for avoiding the “tokenism” that simply creates the appearance of inclusiveness.

Ethnic/cultural studies departments should exist on all Texas college campuses to appropriately educate all Texas college students of the contributions of historically underrepresented populations.


• College and university governing bodies, administrators, staff, and tenure-‐track professor positions should better reflect the current demographics of the state.

• The State should provide greater support to improve student diversity, particularly in predominantly white, four-‐year institutions of higher education.

• Texas should demand greater transparency and improved enforcement of college and university campus assaults and discrimination policies.

• The State should comprehensively study the representation of tenure-‐track Latina/o faculty and administrators in public two-‐ and four-‐year colleges and universities.

• The State must invest in Mexican American/Latino Studies programs and departments at institutions of higher education across the state.

• The State should examine instances of student discrimination and sexual harassment and assault claims across Texas public colleges and universities.

• The State should conduct a needs-‐based evaluation of current resource allocations for counseling and mental health services across public institutions of higher education.

The State should take a more proactive role in improving student diversity, particularly in predominantly Anglo, four-‐year institutions of higher education.


31

STUDENT RETENTION AND COMPLETION IN HIGHER EDUCATION

With the exception of Fall 2011 enrollment rates, Texas has experienced growth in the college enrollment of Latina/o students over the years; however, their completion rates continue to lag.xxxiii Accordingly, the Latina/o Education Task Force set college student retention—or an institution’s ability to retain a student from start to finish—as a priority issue for its policy agenda. Participants acknowledge that these concerns are interrelated to: issues of higher education access such as affordability, availability of student financial aid, and high school preparedness; students’ accessibility to Latina/o faculty; campus climate; and a rising use of high-‐stakes testing at the undergraduate level for entrance into certain college majors. Task Force participants find problematic the amount of debt that students accrue and the frequency of tuition hikes during a students’ pursuit of an undergraduate degree. These recurring comments point back to the need to address the financial aspects that remain relevant to student retention and completion.

Dual Credit programs between high school and colleges contribute to the college completion of Latina/o students.


• The growing use of standardized testing to filter students out of certain degree programs is problematic for Latina/o college students.

• Academic and social supports for Latina/o students must be priorities, particularly at predominately White institutions.

• Higher education institutions must leverage any and all state and federal funding (e.g., TRIO) and work-‐study opportunities.

• The state should increase its commitment to financial incentives and loan forgiveness options for students who obtain bilingual-‐ and ESL-‐certified teaching degrees and pledge to work in schools with acute shortages.

• The State should provide financial support for paid internships and student-‐faculty research partnerships that allow Latina/o students to develop important relationships and gain mentoring, at the same time that they are able to obtain on-‐campus employment.

• Given the high representation of Latinas/os in community colleges,xxxiv the State should examine important indicators of those students’ persistence, transfer, and completion of four-‐year degrees.


32


33

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Public Education Generative Themes

PUBLIC EDUCATION ISSUES School Finance (76%)

Teaching Quality (57%)

School and District Accountability (52%)

Access to Curriculum (50%)

High-‐stakes Testing (44%)

Preserving Public education (41%)

Parental and Community Engagement (33%)

Appendix 2: Higher Education Generative Themes

HIGHER EDUCATION ISSUE Access to Higher Education (85%)

Funding, Capacity, and Expansion of Higher Education (39%)

Student Retention and Completion (37%)

College and University Climate (33%)


34

Appendix 3: Generative Themes among bilingual teacher participants (n=128)

PUBLIC EDUCATION ISSUES HIGHER EDUCATION ISSUES Teaching Quality (38%)

Access to Higher Education (44%)

School and District Accountability (23%)

Funding, Capacity, and Expanding Higher Education (30%)

High-‐stakes Testing (17%)

College and University Campus Climate (15%)

Access to Curriculum (13%)

Student Retention and Completion in Higher Education (5%)

School Finance (6%)

Parental & Community Engagement (3%)


35

Appendix 4: Latina/o Public School Principals in Texas

Source: Texas Education Agency


36


37

Endnotes i National Education Association (March 2014). Rankings of the States 2013 and Estimates of School Statistics 2014. ii This report will use the term “emergent bilingual” when referring to students who speak a language other than English and are acquiring English in school. We choose this term rather than Limited English Proficient (LEP) or English language learners (ELL) because these terms reflect the linguistic situation as a problem rather as a resource as Garcia, Kleifgen and Falchi (2008), characterize students’ language diversities as resources for an increasingly globalized world. However, the latter terms will be used when citing or referencing state and national data systems, policy language or analyses that do not extend the same perspectives. iii Grutter v. Bollinger (2013). iv Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-‐Pedersen, A., and Allen, W. R. “Enhancing Campus Climates for Racial/Ethnic Diversity: Educational Policy and Practice.” Review of Higher Education, 1998, 21(3), 279–302. v National Education Association (March 2014). Rankings of the States 2013 and Estimates of School Statistics 2014. vi Expert testimony of Dr. Albert Cortez, Texas Taxpayers and Student Fairness Coalition et. al v. Williams, January 2014 vii Cochran-‐Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press. viii Villegas, A. M., & Davis, D. E. (2008). Preparing teachers of color to confront racial/ethnic disparities in educational outcomes. In M. Cochran-‐Smith, S. Feiman-‐Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook on research in teacher education (pp. 583–605). New York: Routledge. Villegas, A. M., & Irvine, J. J. (2009, April). Arguments for increasing the racial/ethnic diversity of the teaching force: A look at the evidence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Conference, San Diego, CA. ix Villegas, A. M. (2007). Profile of new Hispanic teachers in U.S. Public Schools: Looking at issues of quantity and quality. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, Ill. x “Funds of knowledge” refers to historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for a household's functioning and well-‐being. See: González, N. Moll, L.C. & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in Households, Communities, and Classrooms. Also see: Vélez-‐Ibáñez, C. & Greenberg, J. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S. Mexican households. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 23, 313-‐335. xi Darder, A. (1993). How does the culture of the teacher shape the classroom experience of Latino students? The unexamined question in critical pedagogy. Handbook of schooling in urban America, 195-‐221. xii Nieto, S. (2005). Schools for a new majority: The role of teacher education in hard times. The new educator, 1(1): 27-‐43.; Monzo´ , L. D., & Rueda, R. (2001). Professional roles, caring, and scaffolds: Latina/o teachers’ and paraeducators’ interactions with Latina/o students. American Journal of Education, 109, 438–471.; Velez-‐Ibanez, C. Greenberg, J. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S. Mexican households. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 23: 313-‐335. Irrizary, J. & Donaldson, M.L. (2012). Teach for América The Latinization of US Schools and the Critical Shortage of Latina/o Teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 49(1): 155-‐194. xiii Dee, T. S. (2005). A teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity, or gender matter? The American Economic Review, 95(2): 158-‐165. xiv THECB. (2013). State of Higher Education Address: Challenges and Opportunities. Retrieved from: http://tinyurl.com/ouefpff xv Valencia, R.R. (2002)."Mexican Americans Don't Value Education!" On the Basis of the Myth, Mythmaking, and Debunking. Journal of Latinos in Education, 1(2), 81-‐103. xvi Salas Comunitarias have been an effective resource for youth and their families seeking information and support pertaining to school-‐based needs at any point of the school day. The success of this state-‐funded initiative in New Mexico has led to the positive development of both teacher-‐parent and teacher-‐student relationships See Lopez, N. (2000). The Missing Link: Latinos and Educational Opportunity Programs. Equity and Excellence, December, 2000, 33(3): 48-‐53. Also see, López, N. & Lechuga, C.E. (2007). They are like a friend: Other mothers creating empowering, school-‐based community living rooms in Latina and Latino middle schools. In Urban Girls Revisited: Building Strengths. Ross Leadbeater, B.J. & Way, N. (Eds.) New York: NYU Press. xvii See Vasquez, O. A. (2003). La Clase Magica: Imagining optimal possibilities in a bilingual community of learners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. See also Flores, B.B., Vasquez, O. A. & Clark, E. R. (2014).Generating Transworld Pedagogy: Reimagining La Clase Mágica.Lexington Books. xviiiFor more on IDRA’s “Quality Schools Action Framework” see: http://www.idra.org/School_Holding_Power/Quality_Schools_Action_Framework%E2%84%A2/


38

xix Mintrop, H.& Sunderman, G.L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions—Driven accountability for school improvement—And why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 353-‐364. xx For more on IDRA’s “Quality Schools Action Framework” see: http://www.idra.org/School_Holding_Power/Quality_Schools_Action_Framework%E2%84%A2/ xxi For more on the New York Performance Standards Consortium see: http://performanceassessment.org/ and http://performanceassessment.org/articles/DataReport_NY_PSC.pdf xxii Grutter v. Bollinger. (2013). xxiii University of Texas at Austin (2013). Report to the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on the Implementation of SB 175, 81st Legislature for the period ending Fall 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/SB_175_Report_for_2013.pdf xxiv THECB. (2012). “Tuition Deregulation Overview.” Retrieved from: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/1527.PDF xxv University of Texas at Austin (2013). Report to the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on the Implementation of SB 175, 81st Legislature for the period ending Fall 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/SB_175_Report_for_2013.pdf xxvi See Hurtado, S. (1992). “The Campus Racial Climate: Contexts of Conflict.” Journal of Higher Education, 63(5), 539–569. See also Hurtado, S, Milem, J., Clayton-‐Pederson, A, and Allen, W. (1999). Enacting Diverse Learning Environments: Improving the Climate for Racial/Ethnic Diversity in Higher Education. ASHE-‐ERIC Higher Education Report 26 (8). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development. xxvii Harper, S.R. & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 120, 7-‐24. xxviii Hurtado, S. (1994). “Graduate School Racial Climates and Academic Self-‐Concept Among Minority Graduate Students in the 1970s.” American Journal of Education, 102(3), 330–351. xxix Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-‐Pedersen, A., and Allen, W. R. “Enhancing Campus Climates for Racial/Ethnic Diversity: Educational Policy and Practice.” Review of Higher Education, 1998, 21(3), 279–302. xxx Bible, D. E., Joyner, S. A. & Slate, J. R. (2011). Ethnic Differences Among Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors at Texas 4-‐Year Universities. Workplace, 18, 44-‐53. Harris, A., Joyner, S. A., & Slate, J. R. (2010). Faculty diversity at Texas community colleges: Increases in Hispanic members. The Community College Enterprise, 16(2), 19-‐31. xxxi Padilla, R.V. & Chávez, R. (1995). The leaning ivory tower: Latino professors in American universities. SUNY Press. xxxii Gutiérrez y Muhs, G., Neimann, Y.F., González, C.G. & Harris, A.P. (2011). Presumed Incompetent: The intersections of race and class for women in academia. University of Utah Press. xxxiii THECB (2013). Closing the gaps Spring 2013 Progress Report. Retrieved from: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/3114.PDF?CFID=12655764&CFTOKEN=86276645. xxxiv In 2009, more than 60 percent of Latina/o and African American students enrolled in community colleges, representing 35 percent of community college students. Between 2000 and 2008, increases in enrollment were greatest for Hispanic students. In 2008, there were 210,476 Latina/o students enrolled in public community colleges compared to 189,706 students in 2007. THECB (2010). Strategic Plan for Texas Public Community Colleges: 2011-‐2015. Retrieved from: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/files/dmfile/StrategicPlanforTexasPublicCommunityColleges2.pdf

FOR QUESTIONS PLEASE EMAIL: [email protected]

Documents

A Latina/o K-12 and Higher Education Policy Agenda in Texas