EDITORIALS
FRAUD IN EDUCATION
July 21, 2010 - Imagine. You’re being sued and in the middle of the trial you learn that your lawyer flunked the
bar exam but is allowed to practice anyway because the authorities think he will pass on one of the next three
times he tries.
Parents of children in some Texas schools – and all Texas taxpayers – are in a similar situation in regard to the
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test which their children took. It has been reported in the press
that
under something called the Texas Projection Measure (TPM), a student who fails the test is counted as having
passed if he is expected to pass within three years. Using this deceptive system, every student group improved
in every subject. Except, of course, they didn’t. Press reports noted that 74 school districts in Texas were
rated
“exemplary” and 73 of them gained that status by using this fraudulent scoring method.
The Austin American-Statesman reported that eight schools in the Austin school district were rated
academically unacceptable last year, the first year the TPM was used. Under an honest measure 11 would
have
been ranked unacceptable. For the current year, only one AISD school has been found academically
unacceptable. An accurate scoring would have put four additional schools in that category.
State Rep. Scott Hochberg, the Democratic chairman of the
Just as bad as the fraud itself is the reaction of the state’s education officials. Education Commissioner Robert
Scott has promised, not to abolish this fraudulent practice, but merely to “review.” And he wants to review it
not because parents and taxpayers are entitled to an honest assessment of our schools’ performance, but
because
the students' and educators' ''hard work is being overshadowed by criticism of the use of TPM.” Apparently
Scott would be just fine with this dishonest system if only the critics would just shut up.
However, faced with the criticism, Commissioner Scott has reportedly offered several options for modifying the
system. His options include abolishing the system, allowing districts that want to continue using it to do so, or
modifying it in some unspecified way.
State Rep. Scott Hochberg (D-Houston), chairman of an appropriations subcommittee overseeing the
education
budget, correctly dismissed Scott's proposals as "lipstick on a pig." Hochberg maintained that only abolishing
the TPM and instituting a “real measure of the progress students make," is acceptable.
But Hochberg is facing an uphill battle if he wants to get the TPM abolished. Whatever its faults, it does make
the schools look good – and that’s what keeps the state and Federal money flowing.
LYING ABOUT PROFILING
May 18, 2010 - There has been no shortage of lies told about the Arizona statute dealing with illegal
immigration. One of he most frequently told is that the law will encourage “racial profiling.” In
fact, it will not do anything faintly resembling racial profiling.
The term “profiling,” correctly understood, refers to the practice of suspecting an individual of a
crime not because of any evidence linking him to the crime but merely because of his personal
characteristics. The classic example is a police officer stopping a motorist because he is black
and for that reason alone the office suspects he is carrying drugs or an illegal weapon or the car is
stolen. It is a vicious practice that harasses innocent persons and should be prohibited by any
responsible law enforcement organization.
It is a wholly inappropriate term to apply to the requirement of the Arizona statute. When
personal characteristics are relevant it is not profiling. The purpose of the statute is to detect
persons who are in the country illegally. Only a foreigner can be guilty of that offense. So if a
person looks like a Mexican and speaks only Spanish it is not profiling it is acting on the
evidence to ask for identification.
But profiling sounds unfair, and actual profiling is unfair, so supporters of open borders and
amnesty will continue to misuse the term in order to discredit the Arizona law.
July 21, 2010 - Imagine. You’re being sued and in the middle of the trial you learn that your lawyer flunked the
bar exam but is allowed to practice anyway because the authorities think he will pass on one of the next three
times he tries.
Parents of children in some Texas schools – and all Texas taxpayers – are in a similar situation in regard to the
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test which their children took. It has been reported in the press
that
under something called the Texas Projection Measure (TPM), a student who fails the test is counted as having
passed if he is expected to pass within three years. Using this deceptive system, every student group improved
in every subject. Except, of course, they didn’t. Press reports noted that 74 school districts in Texas were
rated
“exemplary” and 73 of them gained that status by using this fraudulent scoring method.
The Austin American-Statesman reported that eight schools in the Austin school district were rated
academically unacceptable last year, the first year the TPM was used. Under an honest measure 11 would
have
been ranked unacceptable. For the current year, only one AISD school has been found academically
unacceptable. An accurate scoring would have put four additional schools in that category.
State Rep. Scott Hochberg, the Democratic chairman of the
Just as bad as the fraud itself is the reaction of the state’s education officials. Education Commissioner Robert
Scott has promised, not to abolish this fraudulent practice, but merely to “review.” And he wants to review it
not because parents and taxpayers are entitled to an honest assessment of our schools’ performance, but
because
the students' and educators' ''hard work is being overshadowed by criticism of the use of TPM.” Apparently
Scott would be just fine with this dishonest system if only the critics would just shut up.
However, faced with the criticism, Commissioner Scott has reportedly offered several options for modifying the
system. His options include abolishing the system, allowing districts that want to continue using it to do so, or
modifying it in some unspecified way.
State Rep. Scott Hochberg (D-Houston), chairman of an appropriations subcommittee overseeing the
education
budget, correctly dismissed Scott's proposals as "lipstick on a pig." Hochberg maintained that only abolishing
the TPM and instituting a “real measure of the progress students make," is acceptable.
But Hochberg is facing an uphill battle if he wants to get the TPM abolished. Whatever its faults, it does make
the schools look good – and that’s what keeps the state and Federal money flowing.
LYING ABOUT PROFILING
May 18, 2010 - There has been no shortage of lies told about the Arizona statute dealing with illegal
immigration. One of he most frequently told is that the law will encourage “racial profiling.” In
fact, it will not do anything faintly resembling racial profiling.
The term “profiling,” correctly understood, refers to the practice of suspecting an individual of a
crime not because of any evidence linking him to the crime but merely because of his personal
characteristics. The classic example is a police officer stopping a motorist because he is black
and for that reason alone the office suspects he is carrying drugs or an illegal weapon or the car is
stolen. It is a vicious practice that harasses innocent persons and should be prohibited by any
responsible law enforcement organization.
It is a wholly inappropriate term to apply to the requirement of the Arizona statute. When
personal characteristics are relevant it is not profiling. The purpose of the statute is to detect
persons who are in the country illegally. Only a foreigner can be guilty of that offense. So if a
person looks like a Mexican and speaks only Spanish it is not profiling it is acting on the
evidence to ask for identification.
But profiling sounds unfair, and actual profiling is unfair, so supporters of open borders and
amnesty will continue to misuse the term in order to discredit the Arizona law.