Cypress-Fairbanks ISD Asks for Record-Breaking $1.76 Billion Bond

On April 17, 2019May 2, 2019 By Holly HansenIn Education, Uncategorized2 Comments

shutterstock_1332560216 texas spending

On May 4, 2019, Texas’ third largest school district will ask voters to approve the largest school bond debt package in state history.

Cypress-Fairbanks ISD, located northwest of Houston, reports a student enrollment of 116,249 for 2018-19. The district has grown significantly over the past few decades, although growth has slowed recently, with an increase of about 3,000 since the district’s last bond election in 2014. CFISD officials predict the district will grow by another 3,000 to 4,000 students by 2025.

Earlier this year, the CFISD Board of Trustees voted unanimously to hold a new bond election requesting a record-setting $1.76 billion in new debt. If approved, CFISD ballot language states that the funds will be used for a variety of construction and renovation projects, purchases of land and buses, as well as improvements to security infrastructure. The CFISD website indicates that the bond package will only fund two new schools, but also a new performance center and an instructional support center.

Despite the unprecedented amount of tax-payer debt requested, there does not seem to be any organized opposition to the nearly $1.8 billion proposal. The district seems to be promoting the bond with its taxpayer-funded website, and as with the 2014 bond election, a number of contractors, businesses, and individuals have funded a political action committee entitled “Say Yes for CFISD Kids” in order to pay for campaign materials promoting passage. Many of the 2014 contributors are again listed on the PAC’s 2019 website, and some of those 2014 supporters were awarded ISD contracts related to the previous bond. ICI Construction Inc. listed as a 2014 “Say Yes for CFISD Kids” PAC contributor, was awarded $16.87 million in contracts by the district just last September.

The 2014 CFISD bond set records at the time, successfully obtaining approval for $1.2 billion in new debt. As of February 2019, the district had yet to issue $158.8 million from that package, but chief financial officer Stuart Snow indicated the district would sell the remaining amounts in the fall of 2019.

CFISD’s 2014 bond was infamous for more than breaking the billion dollar mark; the board of trustees authorized the use of controversial “rolling polling,” which significantly suppressed voter turnout and provoked state scrutiny. During early voting, the district moved voting locations daily, creating an inconvenient and chaotic scenario for citizen participation. Consequently only 7,266 of more than 200,000 registered voters participated in that election (with only 5,909 voting to approve.)

The controversial strategy used by both the Cypress-Fairbanks and Frisco districts prompted the Texas Legislature to outlaw so-called “rolling polling” the following year. As bill sponsor Greg Bonnen (R-Pearland) noted in 2015, the practice could allow school districts to “essentially harvest votes.” Bonnen stated, “That did not seem consistent with giving all the voters an equal stake in the election.”

While pro-taxpayer advocates successfully banned CFISD’s problematic election structure, state bills proposed to improve transparency and voter participation have not prevailed. Texas school districts and other local government entities are not required to display existing outstanding debt information, including principal and interest. There is also no ballot language requirement for displaying estimated principal and interest of the proposed bond, nor the estimated tax impact.

Even without a ballot language requirement, such information is difficult to find. The Texas Comptroller’s “Debt At A Glance” site is woefully out of date, and only includes data from August 31, 2017. The site does note that a portion of the district’s debt is due to capital appreciation bonds: controversial and costly non-voter-approved borrowing that was finally restricted by the state in 2015. CFISD’s CAB debt includes a principal amount of $505,000, but a maturity amount of a staggering $6.64 million.

The Texas Bond Review Board site is a little more helpful, reporting the following for CFISD, fiscal year 2018:

Principal: $2,517,955,000 ($2.5 billion)
Interest: $1,338,864,254 ($1.3 billion)
Total Payment: $3,856,819,254 ($3.8 billion)

Reformers argue that any business or individual seeking loans would have such information scrutinized by lenders, but Texas does not require similar information to be provided to voters. Nor is relevant debt data readily discoverable on the CFISD website, although the 2018-19 summary of the proposed budget does report that debt service will be more than $205 million this year alone.

Supporters of the bond have produced the usual arguments about increases in student enrollment and need for updates. No doubt these are legitimate concerns. But fiscal responsibility advocates note that while Texas student enrollment increased 48% between 1993 and 2015, the number of teachers increased by 56% and non-teaching staff by 66% over the same period. Watchdog groups also note that many school districts have spent generously on upscale stadiums, performance centers, and even water parks. (CFISD spent $84 million on the touted Berry Center stadium in 2006.) They note that such spending increases do not correlate to improved student outcomes. CFISD’s archives indicate Grade 3-8 reading and writing achievements have actually declined slightly since 2014, and the Texas Education Agency reports that in 2018 43% of the district’s students were performing “below grade level.” While the bipartisan Texas House Bill 3 calls for districts to conduct third-party “efficiency audits,” CFISD is currently not obligated to provide such an efficiency-in-spending audit to the public.

While claiming need for increased spending and debt, CFISD continues to use taxpayer funds to lobby against expansion of charter schools, which often help districts absorb student growth and can be more successful in improving student outcomes, all while spending less per pupil. CFISD also spends taxpayer money to lobby for dismantling the state’s new school accountability ratings and reducing objective student achievement measures like standardized tests.

Due to the anticipated low voter participation rates typical of May elections, along with PAC spending on promotional campaign activities, and a lack of organized opposition, CFISD’s record-setting bond is likely to pass. As with the 2014 bond package, the district has tried to reassure voters that they will issue bonds slowly and to try to mitigate the inevitable tax rate increases. They are also counting on rising property values and growth in the tax base to increase revenues, but there are no guarantees regarding future tax increases. Even if the Texas Legislature comes through with currently proposed reforms, both the 2014 and 2019 bond packages give CFISD the leeway to increase taxes to pay for its ever-growing debt burden.

Find voting information for the CFISD 2019 Bond Election:

Early Voting: April 22-30, 2019

Election Day: May 4, 2019

Education Myths Hinder Learning

On April 4, 2019April 5, 2019 By Holly HansenIn EducationLeave a comment

“We’ve got to drop rote memorization and teach critical thinking!”

How often we hear the above sentiment or some variation thereof. Unfortunately this popular anti-memorization cliché is one of several education myths that may actually prevent the kind of critical thinking educators claim they want to teach.

In her book, Seven Myths About Education, UK educator Daisy Christodoulou analyzes several destructive trends in modern schooling, many of which are related to an antipathy to memorization and core knowledge. She provides examples of how myths like “facts prevent understanding,” or “you can always just look it up” permeate schools in both the U.S. and the U.K.

But contrary to popular belief, these so-called new ideas for “21^st Century” education are actually rehashed, re-packaged educational theory from the 18th and 19^th centuries, including theory from the problematic architect of the American public school system, John Dewey. Dewey although often vague, essentially set up a false dichotomy in which facts and knowledge (bad) are diametrically opposed to critical thinking (good). He also promoted the idea that students should learn transferable skills instead of knowledge. Applying Deweyan ideas, some modern curricula have literally called for “lessons in walking, digging and planting wheat” to replace rote learning in traditional academics. *

While digging and planting wheat may certainly be valuable skills, (and one hopes walking skills can still be acquired sans government-approved curricula,) memorization of traditional academic knowledge is not only not antithetical to so-called critical thinking, it is essential to it.

In her book, “A Mind for Numbers: How to Excel at Math and Science,” Professor Barbara Oakley uses neuroscience to explain the role of rote memorization. With few exceptions, the working memory can only juggle about 4 pieces of information at a time, but sufficient information stored in the long-term memory supplements the thinking process and allows for greater flexibility and understanding of new information. Rote memorization is the process by which we put necessary background information into the long-term memory, and which consequently allows for more advanced processes in the working memory. Without those background facts, students are unequipped for higher level thinking. And as for the myth that students can just “look up” missing information, to borrow another but better supported cliché, “you don’t know what you don’t know.”

Christodoulou and Oakley both emphasize that more lessons from neuroscience need to be applied to improving education. Unfortunately, as Christodoulou notes, modern pedagogy seems more heavily reliant on unproven (and sometimes disproven) social theory. She includes this ominous quote from Nobel Prize-winning researcher Herbert Simon:

New ‘theories’ of education are introduced into schools every day (without labeling them as experiments) on the basis of their philosophical or common-sense plausibility but without genuine empirical support.

By contrast, Dr. Oakley offers scientifically proven techniques for improving learning and memorization, such as the “memory palace,” mnemonic strategy, or just taking old-fashioned hand-written notes. While neither Christodoulou nor Oakley eschews technology, both authors recognize that technological devices are mere tools that offer limited value, and may actually interfere with learning. Recent studies indicate that reading on electronic devices not only reduces comprehension, but may reduce the brain’s ability to read, and might negatively impact learning as early as the toddler years. Apparently unaware of these studies, many K-12 educators have been positively giddy about providing E-devices to “teach technology” for the “21^st Century.” Meanwhile, a growing number of professors and enlightened teachers have banned laptops, tablets, and smartphones from their classrooms due to reduced achievement and the constant distraction such devices seem to create.

Parents exploring their educational options would benefit from reading both Seven Myths About Education and A Mind for Numbers before choosing a school. School leaders who understand the difference between education myths and proven scientific studies on learning can make a significant difference in student success. Ironically, classical education, which rejects edu-fads in favor of the ancient trivium of learning, correlates with what the latest neuroscience suggests. The classical model provides younger students with various techniques to memorize facts about math, history, culture, geography, science, etc. In the middle school years students learn about and begin to apply logic to the knowledge they’ve stored. Finally, in high school, or the “rhetoric stage,” they engage in discussion and analysis. That latter rhetoric stage is where critical thinking can really take place, but it would not be possible without the core knowledge students stored in long-term memory during the first two stages.

In evaluating educational models, parents, educators, and legislators should reject the misguided myths outlined by Christodoulou. The truth is that the 21^st century did not “change everything.” We may have new tools at our disposal, but neuroscience shows that the human brain hasn’t morphed into some new unknown creature. Memorization and practice are still essential elements of learning and prepare students for the kind of higher level thinking we all claim to value.

*Daisy Christodoulou, Seven Myths About Education (New York: Routledge 2014), 17.

Rights and Responsibilities: Parents, Children, and Government

On February 20, 2019 By Holly HansenIn EducationLeave a comment

You’re not the Boss of Me!

Most parents have heard some version of the above childish response to authority. At age five our own strong-willed child announced, “When I grow up I’m going to declare myself Supreme Emperor so that no one can boss me!” Although highly amused by the expressed ambition, as his parents we endeavored to teach him that as a “grown up,” he would certainly enjoy greater autonomy but also greater responsibility. In addition, we advised him that throughout his life some person or entity would exercise a measure of jurisdiction over him, and much of the time we should respect appropriate authority.

Even as adults we have a complicated relationship with authority. Like our children, we often balk at attempts to restrict our freedoms, but at other times we would rather someone else take responsibility for tough decisions or difficult challenges. Judeo-Christians know well the story of the ancient Israelites who demanded that God provide them with a king, despite prophetic warnings that this would lead to more suffering than peace. Likewise, Socrates (via Plato) proposed that a powerful but enlightened and benevolent “Philosopher King” would offer the best form of government. Now, although the framers of the U.S. system prized individual liberty and less autonomous forms of government, we seem once again to be moving towards more authoritarian structures.

Nowhere is this more troubling than in the arena of parental and familial rights. In some cases parents seem to assume that certain “professionals,” such as teachers or health providers, have the authority to dictate on a variety of issues. Lately I’ve heard from mothers who believe they’re required to send children to a sexual-preferences-based story-time because the teacher said it was “mandatory,” or who thought they had to submit to a dentist who prohibited parents from the exam room. In these cases parents are often unsure of their rights and afraid to assert authority and responsibility for their own children.

Parents vs. Government

Of course parental rights have become controversial as lawmakers attempt to determine the line between the rights and responsibilities of parents v. those of government. For example, while all fifty of the United States recognize parents’ rights to educate children at home, the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled that German law superseded a family’s right to home school. U.S. Lawmakers also struggle to balance parents’ rights to refuse immunizations with the need to promote public health and safety. And high divorce/single parenting rates, combined with societal confusion on sex and gender, are adding to the legal dilemma over who has jurisdiction over children.

Government Replacing Families

As more Americans look to government to solve societal problems, the number of jurisdictional conflicts will inevitably increase. The late Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer wrote,

“Every piece of social policy substitutes for some traditional arrangement… a new arrangement in which public authorities take over, at least in part, the role of the family, of the ethnic and neighborhood group, or of the voluntary association. In doing so, social policy weakens the positions of these traditional agents.”

Glazer’s warning is relevant to multiple areas of policy debate. The proposed expansion of government-funded education to include pre-kindergarten students at age 4 or even 3 years, will continue to erode family rights and reduce familial responsibility to children. (Leftists make no secret of this goal in calling for “cradle to career” government institutions.) Already many educators lament the lack of parental involvement in K-12 public schooling, without recognizing the psychological impact of our quasi-imposed system. Parents are relieved of the role of making any choices about their child’s education, and therefore distanced from the educational process. This dynamic will only worsen under expanding programs.

Adults Dependent on Government

In addition to weakening family structures and reducing parental investment, increasing the role of government often turns adults into child-like dependents. Although lawmakers in the past have often crafted welfare initiatives to serve as temporary “safety nets,” some recent leaders seem unconcerned about long-term dependency. President Obama sought to reduce accountability and work requirements for certain welfare recipients, and there are a surprisingly high number of able-bodied adults without dependents utilizing programs like SNAP. More recently, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez appeared to call for economic support of those “unable or unwilling to work.”

And yet, Leftists like Anand Giridharadas justify government solutions that include willingly stifling private philanthropy by invoking an interesting and disturbing semantic sleight of hand; instead of “private charity,” they reframe such efforts as “private redistribution.” Girinharadas and others such as Chiara Cordelli, un-ironically claim that such private redistribution treats adults “like children.” Girinharadas and company are unwilling to acknowledge the destructive dynamic of government programs, which often reduce adults to long-term wards of the state.

The best welfare programs, whether public or private, are like good parenting: they create pathways to independence. Rather than “redistribution,” such programs engage, teach, and assist. Also, private efforts arguably allow for greater innovation and less bureaucracy. One Texas-based example is S & B Engineers and Constructors ‘earn while you learn’ program, in which unemployed and underemployed women are paid $17/hour while learning welding and pipe-fitting, after which the women obtain jobs starting at around $60,000 per year. Such private sector programs not only create a skilled and needed workforce, but assist voluntary participants in gaining financial independence.

Render Unto Caesar Only That Which Is Caesar’s

Unfortunately, an increasing number of adults are calling for government solutions to all societal problems. In their utopian visions, a benevolent government will serve as parent to people of all ages and will meet all needs. They seem unable to grasp the idea that said government will not be composed of angelic and benevolent creatures, but…of flawed human beings; some of whom will be ethical and competent, some who will be ethical but incompetent, and worst of all, some who will be unethical but deadly competent. While we should not be afraid to “render unto Caesar,” we should also guard that which is not the rightful jurisdiction of “Caesar,” by defending and reinforcing parental rights and responsibilities, and encouraging able adults to enjoy the dignity of self-sufficiency.

As for our aspiring “Supreme Emperor,” I am happy to report that he is a working college student who pays for his own car, gas, and auto insurance, and who participates in elections. He still gets “bossed” by his bosses and professors, but he understands his rights and responsibilities, and we celebrate his continued progress towards full adult independence. Hopefully he will be able to pass these values to his own children.

Education’s Misplaced Priorities

On January 8, 2019 By Holly HansenIn EducationLeave a comment

What will your School District Lobbyist do in Austin this year?

In preparation for the biennial Texas legislative session opening on January 8, school districts and other local government entities have created “legislative priority” lists for their respective lobbyists to take to the state capitol. While legislative wish lists may not carry the entertainment value of say, analyzing various political Twitter accounts, citizens would do well to scrutinize the stated priorities of our local, but less visible politicians.

Unfortunately, these published priority lists can be misleading. For example, Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District’s recently published list, (which like most districts largely mirrors that of the Texas Association of School Boards), includes a call for the state to “restore” its “share” of formula funding to at least 50%. This wording gives many readers the impression that the state has cut education funding, when in fact education spending in Texas has increased by an inflation-adjusted 29.7%. Under the current “Robin Hood” system, when local revenue goes up, the state’s proportion goes down for some districts, (even though Texas increased education spending by $5.2 billion last session). As it stands, the funding structure is contributing to an increasing property tax burden for Texas families, and has not effectively incentivized either efficiency or improvements in student achievement. While there is little doubt that the legislature will increase education spending in 2019, there is an urgent need to accompany increases with meaningful reforms.

While calling for more funding on one hand, several priority lists include an apparent demand to diminish accountability standards for public schools. Although the new, more understandable A-F grading system has not yet been fully implemented, these districts are demanding a return to the previous vague and opaque ratings in which schools are rated as either having “Met Standard” or “Improvement Required.” The new A-F system takes into account not only standardized test scores, but also yearly student growth and the progress of racial/ethnic and economically disadvantaged groups. Unfortunately, some administrators do not want this more fine-tuned scrutiny, and in addition to opposing the A-F system, are also lobbying for a curtailing of the state’s standardized testing program known as STAAR.

The STAAR tests, created in collaboration with Texas teachers, have both ardent supporters and passionate opponents. Some opponents claim the STAAR itself is problematic and should be replaced, but national measures (NAEP) reflect the same student achievement trends, and only about 16% of Texas students are earning college-ready scores on the ACT and SAT. A small, but surprisingly vocal minority of Texans seem to believe we should stop testing altogether and “just trust teachers.” In that public education in Texas constitutes a $60 billion program and is responsible for more than 5 million students, or “souls,” that solution is both unpalatable and highly unlikely. And while a significant number of people do not actually enjoy taking tests, tests of many kinds are an ever-present factor of the adult life for which schools are purportedly preparing students.

As for the Texas STAAR, despite the horror stories about overly demanding and stressful tests, it turns out that students earn a passing score even if they are performing below grade level. Which explains why a “highly rated” district like Cy-Fair ISD might be asking the State to throw out the new grading system and reduce student exposure to the STAAR tests. Although CFISD boasts an 83% pass rate, of the 189,364 CFISD students tested in 2018, only 57% actually met or mastered grade level. Therefore, approximately 43% of CFISD students are testing below grade level. Broken down by demographics, 56% of African-American, 51% of Hispanic, and 55% of economically disadvantaged students in CFISD are actually testing below expected grade-levels.

And perhaps these sobering numbers also explain Cy-Fair ISD’s antipathy towards public charter schools. Among the various successful charter operators in Texas, are models that have proven successful with minorities and economically disadvantaged students, as well as models that offer a more rigorous curriculum that brings “at grade level” students to mastery and beyond.

If the goal is to increase student achievement for every demographic, why would we not welcome charter models that seem to better serve some segments of the population? Sadly, CFISD and other districts plan to lobby against the expansion of charter schools into “high performing” districts; a moniker they may not enjoy under the closer scrutiny provided by the new A-F school rating system.

There are no simple, easy solutions when it comes to education policy. State lawmakers in Texas will have a limited window of opportunity in 2019 to craft remedies for Texas children and families. But in light of the challenges of lagging student achievement, funding difficulties, and increasingly burdensome property taxes, the status quo is unacceptable, (as is merely increasing funding without reform). Hopefully, our representatives will endeavor to represent not districts, but students, and create opportunities for greater student success at every level.

School for the School Board

On December 12, 2018December 12, 2018 By Holly HansenIn Education2 Comments

shutterstock_1176339898

What is the primary duty of local school boards?

I recently asked this question of a seven-year Texas school board trustee. She answered: 1) to maximize student learning achievement, 2) to hire and supervise the superintendent, and 3) to set and manage the district budget. She followed up by emphasizing, “In that order,” because, she noted, “ nothing is as important as student learning.”

While these may sound like obvious goals, many school boards spend an inordinate amount of time on everything but student achievement, and often during a confusing array of closed and open meetings that may last an excruciating eight hours or more. Former TEA official, Kara Belew, now senior education policy advisor at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, notes that she spent nearly a year observing one board that never once addressed student achievement issues. School boards across the state may be touting spectacular sports stadiums and water parks, or worse, crafting “legislative agendas,” (for which the district often spends taxpayer dollars to lobby the state for more taxpayer dollars), but few boards are even talking about whether district students are learning reading and math.

One solution is to send school boards back to school.

Under current law, elected school board trustees must undergo training, but the state has permitted a number of outside groups to provide these trainings; the most prominent provider being the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB). Now, under Commissioner Mike Morath, the Texas Education Agency is offering an optional board training and certification through “Lone Star Governance,” a program that directs focus on one primary objective: Improving Student Outcomes.

Why is this important?

While there has been some good news for Texas students, such as the drop in the number of low-performing schools and increase in SAT/ACT pass rates, there’s still plenty of troubling news. At a recent education policy summit in Austin, Commissioner Morath shared that while there has been improvement, only about 43% of third-graders are meeting grade level in reading and math, around 50% of 8^th graders are on target, and less than 20% of Texas students are attaining college-ready scores on the SAT/ACT. Clearly, there is still plenty of room for improvement.

As always, there is the perennial call for more spending, but state education funding has increased from $43.1 billion in 2007 to $60.6 billion in 2017. Also, at $11,349 in per-pupil spending, Texas hovers around the national average and still with better results than big spenders like New York and California.

In light of these hard numbers, many taxpayers and parents are calling for greater efficiency and purpose in education spending, including a focus on the issue that really matters: student learning.

Enter the TEA’s Lone Star Governance program.

During LSG’s two-day training, elected school board trustees and superintendents are taught to set an achievable number of publicly-stated goals and constraints that focus on improving student outcomes. Attendees learn to track progress, properly empower and constrain the superintendent, and to conduct regular evaluations of both the superintendent and the board itself. Boards are also encouraged to adopt policies that prevent conflicts of interest and promote transparency. And, to the great rejoicing of ISD observers everywhere, boards are given time-tracking tools, taught to minimize “closed” session meetings, and limit regular and public meetings to three times a month and two hours each.

The Lone Star Governance program is not the silver bullet that will fix everything in public education, but I do see cause for cautious optimism. Under the previously mentioned TASB trainings, newly-elected trustees are taught that the superintendent is the “quarterback,” who directs the activities of the board. This dynamic is alarmingly at odds with the original democratic structure in which school boards are answerable to both the voters and the state (since the state is the entity constitutionally responsible for a system of public education). In a properly aligned district, the superintendent is an empowered employee of the elected board, but not the ultimate authority. By equipping boards to find the happy medium between micromanaging and giving superintendent’s carte blanche, the LSG program restores an appropriately constitutional governing mindset.

Also, although TASB purports to share the same goals, trainers been known to convey a contemptuous attitude towards reformers, parents, and taxpayers, and to encourage boards to engage in lobbying the state legislature to protect the status quo and oppose reforms. Lone Star Governance actually mentions “empowering parents,” and seeks to return board focus to the students, or as Commissioner Morath calls them, the “5.5 million souls” in the Texas education system, and whether or not they are learning. Of the boards that have adopted student achievement as the primary goal, there seems to be an increased willingness to allow innovations such as in-district charters and parental choice programs that have been so successful in other parts of the country.

One cause for concern in the LSG materials is the heavy emphasis on board unity and teamwork. Not that unity and teamwork are bad things, but one problem with many school boards is that misguided notions of “unity” have sometimes stifled the kind of debate that leads to better outcomes. No trustee who questions the efficacy or cost of proposed policy should be labeled “rogue” or “maverick” as TASB has done.

School boards should focus on the real purpose of public education, which is not to maintain institutions or provide jobs, but to educate children. Real children, or as Commissioner Morath describes them, “souls.” That distinction makes all the difference in the world.