This post is tenth in a series on the education planks of the 2010 Texas Democratic Party Platform.
This is an unofficial version published in advance of the final version from the Texas Democrats, but I expect very few changes.
COMMUNITY COLLEGES
Democrats recognize and support the essential role of Texas community colleges, where almost 60% of Texas post-secondary students are enrolled. By combining affordability, high quality and responsiveness to community needs, these institutions provide an education to those who would be otherwise excluded.
Republicans have drastically reduced funding for community colleges and that burden has been shifted onto students, their families and property taxpayers. A significant funding increase would be needed just to restore Republican cuts to the 2002-3 state funding level, without adjusting for inflation. Not only do the Governor and Republican politicians again want to shift hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs for employees’ group insurance onto students and local property taxpayers, they have already cut funding by 5% this year. And they are asking for an additional 10% in cuts to Republican budgets that currently allow only 4% of students eligible for Texas Equal Opportunity Grants to receive grants designated for community college students. To maintain community colleges’ role in providing lifelong education, we endorse:
full formula funding of the cost of instruction and of the growth in student enrollments;
fully state-funded full time employee group health insurance and proportional health benefits for adjunct instructors;
funding for new campuses and program expansions, especially in critical need programs, sufficient to meet Closing the Gaps goals;
rolling back tuition and fees that have increased over 50% under Republican control;
sufficient financial aid to cover 260,000 community college students who are eligible for grant assistance but receive none because state funding is inadequate; and
elimination of financial aid rules that penalize students who transfer to universities from community colleges.
To prevent further erosion of community colleges’ ability to serve their communities, Texas Democrats oppose:
proposals for “proportionality” that would shift group insurance costs onto students and property taxpayers;
shifting the basis of formula funding away from actual costs; and
“incentive programs that would discriminate against colleges and programs serving disadvantaged and non-traditional students or against non-degree skill-building and retraining programs.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
This post is ninth in a series on the education planks of the 2010 Texas Democratic Party Platform.
This is an unofficial version published in advance of the final version from the Texas Democrats, but I expect very few changes.
HIGHER EDUCATION
Texas Democrats believe all Texans should have the opportunity and be encouraged to pursue affordable higher education at public universities, community colleges, and technical schools. Republican “tuition deregulation” – cleverly named to imply an easing of burdens – has dramatically increased the financial burden and forced many students from middle income families to take on substantial debt to avoid being priced out of college. Tuition policies threaten our ability to meet state “Closing the Gaps” goals essential to our economic future. To offer affordable access to higher education, we support:
restoration of formula contact hour funding to the level prior to Republican cuts, adjusted for inflation and student growth;
legislative rollback of tuition and fees to affordable levels to reflect the restored funding;
federal income tax credits for college tuition;
full funding of TEXAS Grants and reforming and reopening the mismanaged state Prepaid Tuition Program, to provide higher education to more Texans without excessive debt burden;
legislation to reduce the inordinately high costs of college textbooks, technical manuals and other instructional materials;
adequate compensation, security, professional status, and benefits for all faculty and fair market wages for college employees;
weapon-free institutes of higher education;
higher education research funding to spur economic development, including sufficient funding to locate a Tier 1 research and teaching university in every region of the state;
collaborative public/higher education partnerships from pre-K-16 to enhance learning and teacher preparation;
enhanced, equitable funding for Prairie View A&M and Texas Southern University and for higher education in South Texas and all border communities;
efforts to place a voting student regent on the appointed governing board of each state supported four-year institution of higher education; and
the continuation of the Texas DREAM Act.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
This post is eighth in a series on the education planks of the 2010 Texas Democratic Party Platform.
This is an unofficial version published in advance of the final version from the Texas Democrats, but I expect very few changes.
MAKING OUR SCHOOLS SAFE HAVENS FOR LEARNING
Texas Democrats believe students, teachers and other school personnel should be safe from acts of violence, and students must be protected from bullying. School campuses and functions must be weapon-free and drug-free. We support swift and fair enforcement of disciplinary standards. Teachers deserve support when they exercise their right to remove a disruptive student from class.
Students referred to disciplinary alternative education programs should continue to receive strong academic instruction. When a student’s misconduct is serious enough to warrant disciplinary placement, the state should make sure that the disciplinary setting – whether a school district’s own disciplinary alternative program or a county’s juvenile-justice alternative education program – offers a full array of educational and social/behavioral services to help that student get back on track. School districts should be discouraged from indiscriminately placing students in disciplinary alternative education programs for trivial misconduct.
We support the Dignity for All Students Act to guarantee safety for all students.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
This post is fifth in a series on the education planks of the 2010 Texas Democratic Party Platform.
This is an unofficial version published in advance of the final version from the Texas Democrats, but I expect very few changes.
SOLVING THE DROPOUT CRISIS
Rick Perry may be willing to write off more than a fourth of the school age children in Texas, but Texans can’t afford to pay the price for Perry’s complacency in the face of the dropout crisis. Solving the dropout crisis is a priority for Texas Democrats because it threatens the economic well-being of all Texans, and failure to solve the dropout crisis could write off economic progress for an entire generation. Texas already has more low-wage and minimum wage workers than any other state, and in Texas dropouts earn $7,000 less per year than high school graduates. According to the state demographer, if these trends persist, by 2040, the average annual Texas household income will be $6,500 less than in the year 2000, at a cost to Texas of over $300 billion per year in lost income.
More than one-fourth of Texas high school students fail to graduate on time. For African American and Hispanic students, the dropout rate is more than one-third. Out of all 50 states, Texas has the highest percentage of adults who have not completed high school. However, in response to the Governor’s call for across-the-board budget cuts to address an $18 billion state budget shortfall, his Texas Education Agency recommended cutting programs that have helped keep kids in school and off the street. The economic consequences of such shortsighted policies are stark. Rick Perry’s refusal to address this dropout crisis is making Texas poorer, less educated, and less competitive.
Proper funding of all our schools to meet the needs of students who are most at risk of dropping out is essential. Specific solutions include:
school-community collaboration that brings educational and social services together under one roof to help at-risk students and their families;
expanded access to early childhood education, targeting at-risk students;
dual-credit and early-college programs that draw at-risk students into college and career paths while still in high school;
equitable distribution of highly qualified teachers, to change current practices that too often match the most at-risk students with the least experienced and least prepared teachers;
enforce daytime curfew laws to reduce truancy;
providing access to affordable programs for adults who have dropped out of the education process.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
This post is fourth in a series on the education planks of the 2010 Texas Democratic Party Platform.
This is an unofficial version published in advance of the final version from the Texas Democrats, but I expect very few changes.
EXCELLENT SCHOOLS FOR EVERY STUDENT
To make public education our highest priority, we believe the state should:
provide universal access to pre-kindergarten and kindergarten;
provide universally accessible after school programs for grades 1-12;
provide free, accurate and updated instructional materials aligned to educationally appropriate, non-ideological state curriculum standards and tests;
provide free computer and internet access, as well as digital instructional materials;
provide early intervention programs to ensure every child performs at grade level in English Language Arts, Social Studies, Math, and Science;
ensure that students with disabilities receive an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment, including access to the full range of services and supports called for in their individual education plans;
provide appropriate career and technical education programs;
reject efforts to destroy bilingual education;
promote multi-language instruction, beginning in elementary school, to make all students fluent in English and at least one other language;
replace high-stakes tests, used to punish students and schools, with multiple measures that restore the original intent of the state assessment system–improving instruction to help students think critically, be creative and succeed;
end inappropriate testing of students with disabilities whose individual education plans call for alternative assessments of their educational progress;
enforce and extend class size limits to allow every student to receive necessary individualized attention;
support Title IX protections for gender equity in public education institutions;
ensure that every school has a fully funded library that meets state requirements;
provide environmental education programs for children and adults; and
oppose private school vouchers.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
This post is third in a series on the education planks of the 2010 Texas Democratic Party Platform.
This is an unofficial version published in advance of the final version from the Texas Democrats, but I expect very few changes.
PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING
Texas Democrats believe:
the state should establish a 100% equitable school finance system with sufficient state revenue to allow every district to offer an exemplary program;
the state should equitably reduce reliance on “Robin Hood” recapture;
state funding formulas should fully reflect all student and district cost differences and the impact of inflation and state mandates;
Texas should maintain or extend the 22-1 class size limits and expand access to prekindergarten and kindergarten programs; and
the federal government should fully fund all federal education mandates and the Elementary and [Secondary] Education Act.
Republicans have shortchanged education funding every session they have controlled the Texas Legislature. After cutting billions from public education in 2003, the 2006 Republican school funding plan froze per pupil funding, leaving local districts faced with increasing costs for fuel, utilities, insurance and personnel with little new state money. To make matters worse, that same plan placed stringent limits on local ability to make up for the state’s failures.
In 2009, Republicans hypocritically supplanted state support for our schools with the very federal “stimulus” aid they publicly condemned after state revenues plunged because of the Republican-caused recession and the structural state budget deficit they created. They reduced state funding for our schools by over $3 billion. Because our student population continues to grow, the combined reduction in state revenue per student was nearly 13%.
Most Texans support our public schools, yet now Republicans want to cut even more from education and also want to siphon off limited public education funds for inequitable, unaccountable voucher and privatization schemes. Texas Democrats believe these attempts to destroy our public schools must be stopped.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
This post is second in a series on the education planks of the 2010 Texas Democratic Party Platform.
This is an unofficial version published in advance of the final version from the Texas Democrats, but I expect very few changes.
EDUCATION
Texas Democrats strongly support our Constitution’s recognition that a free, quality public education is “essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people.” Texas Democrats believe a world class education system is a moral imperative and an economic necessity that requires parents, educators and community leaders to work together to provide our children the skills needed to compete and succeed in a global economy.
Texas Democrats believe all children should be able to attend a safe, secure school and have access to an exemplary educational program that values and encourages critical thinking and creativity, not the “drill and kill” teach-to-the-test policy Republicans have forced on students and teachers. To fulfill this commitment, Texas Democrats continue leading the fight to improve student achievement, lower dropout rates, and attract and retain well-qualified teachers.
Democrats also believe it is essential that all Texans have access to affordable, quality higher education and career education programs, with a renewed emphasis on the importance of a full four year college education, and particular attention to science, technology and engineering.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
So, for the next several posts, Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub presents you the unofficial Preamble and education planks of the Texas Democratic Party Platform 2010. The Preamble includes mentions of general philosophy of Texas Democrats regarding education.
2010 Texas Democratic Party Platform
Report of the Permanent Committee on Platform
Preamble
“The Democratic Party is not a collection of diverse interests brought together only to win elections. We are united instead by a common heritage – by a respect for the deeds of the past and a recognition of the needs of the future.”
— John F. Kennedy, from a speech he was to deliver in Austin on November 22, 1963
Texas Democrats believe government can be as good as the people. We have faith that democracy, built on the sacred values of family, freedom and fairness, can afford every Texan, without exception, the opportunity to achieve their God-given potential.
We believe democratic government exists to achieve as a community, state, and nation what we cannot achieve as individuals; and that it must not serve only a powerful few.
We believe every Texan has inalienable rights that even a majority may not take away
…the right to vote
…the right to fair and open participation and representation in the democratic process
…the right to privacy.
We believe in freedom
…from government interference in our private lives and personal decisions
…to exercise civil and human rights
…of religion and individual conscience.
We believe in equal opportunity for all Texans
…to receive a quality public education, from childhood through college
…to have access to affordable, comprehensive health care
…to find a good job with dignity
…to buy or rent a good home in a safe community
…to breathe clean air and drink clean water.
We believe a growing economy should benefit all Texans
…that the people who work in a business are as important as those who invest in it
…that every person should be paid a living wage
…that good business offers a fair deal for customers
…that regulation of unfair practices and rates is necessary
…that the burden of taxes should be fairly distributed
…that government policy should not favor corporations that seek offshore tax shelters, exploit workers, pollute our environment, or spend corporate money to influence elections;
We believe that our lives, homes, communities and country are made secure
…by appropriately staffed and trained law enforcement and emergency agencies
…by retirement and pension security
…by encouraging job security where it is possible and providing appropriate assistance and re-training when it is not
…by the preservation of our precious natural resources and quality of life
…by compassionate policy that offers a safety net for those most vulnerable and in need.
We believe America is made stronger by the men and women who put their lives on the line when it is necessary to engage our military to secure our nation.
We believe America is made more secure by competent diplomatic leadership that uses the moral, ethical, economic assets of a powerful, free nation to avoid unnecessary military conflict.
We believe in the benefits derived from the individual strengths of our diverse population. We honor “family values” through policies that value all our families.
We believe an honest, ethical state government that serves the public interest, and not the special interests, will help all Texans realize economic and personal security.
We believe many challenges require national solutions, but talented and resourceful Texans, blessed with opportunities provided by agriculture, “old” and “new” energy sources, renowned medical and research institutions and high tech industries, should not need federal action to make progress in providing quality education, affordable health care, a clean environment, a strong economy and good jobs.
Based on our belief in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, we recommend specific policy goals to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
Education planks from the platform immediately follow the Preamble, a salute to the importance Democrats attach to education and students. Those planks follow in successive posts.
All of the education sections of the 2010 Texas Democratic Party Platform appear here at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub , in eleven sections, listed in reverse chronological order of posting:
Nice drive to Corpus Christi for the Texas Democratic Convention. Long drive. Very long drive. One yearns for the days when flying inside Texas was much more affordable.
Interstate 35 traffic frustrates several million people a day. One cannot drive through Austin without a slowdown at any hour of most business days. Once-clear country roads are congested. Clearly that problem needs some attention.
It’s a stirring and interesting sight that greets you coming into Corpus Christi on I-37. From a distance you’ll see the massive wind farm, huge windmills cranking out electricity, almost a vision of a cleaner future through the haze. Closer into town the windmills can be seen through the industrial maze of oil refineries. It probably can’t be photographed well except from the air, but it’s an interesting juxtaposition of the changes Texas lives through, and the challenges ahead. I was reminded of the “successful labor-management negotiation” workshops:
Hope for the future, a picture of reality . . . now, what are the plans to proceed?
Bill White’s speech pleased the crowd. Not fire and brimstone; enough humor that most delegates smiled all the way through, but full of substantive contrasts between Rick Perry’s policies and those White wishes to pursue instead. Parts of the speech carry the mark of brilliant speech writing, especially in the breezy, pleasant way White paints the policy differences. Here’s the end of the speech:
Rick Perry will claim he represents Texas values. But Perry’s Texas is different than our Texas.
In Rick Perry’s Texas insurance and utility rates rise faster than in other states. In our Texas wages will go up faster because we invest in people.
In Rick Perry’s Texas we import nurses and welders and other skilled workers from abroad. In our Texas we will train more Texans to do those jobs.
In Rick Perry’s Texas the State Board of Education injects political ideology into classrooms. In our Texas we’ll put more computers in our classrooms.
In Rick Perry’s Texas state boards and agencies are pressured from the top to serve those who help the Governor’s re-election. In our Texas government will be the servant, not the master, and our customers will be ordinary Texans.
In Rick Perry’s Texas the governor threatens to leave the world’s greatest country. He is content [to] allow our state to compete with Mississippi for lack of social progress. In our Texas other states will follow Texas because we will be the leader.
In Rick Perry’s Texas citizens are stuck in traffic in big cities because the Texas Department of Transportation was doing the bidding of a foreign company promoting the land grab known as the Trans-Texas Corridor. In our Texas we will work across party lines for a new mobility plan, assisting commuters to get from home to work and all communities to get their goods to market.
In Rick Perry’s Texas the best days may be behind us. In our Texas our best days are ahead of us.
Let us go from this convention, staffing phone banks, knocking on doors, and sending emails. Lift up all who share our values, from the courthouse to the statehouse to the double-wide trailer Andrea and I will live in while the Mansion is rebuilt. Describe to friends and neighbors, from both parties, the simple choice we face in the governor’s race.
Rick Perry is in it for Rick Perry. By the grace of God and with your help, I’m in it for Texas, for you.
Bill White, after his speech at the Texas Democratic Convention - R. G. Ratcliff photo, Houston Chronicle blogs
It was one of the most positive speeches I’ve heard at conventions in a long time — takes me back to Mo Udall at the 1976 National Democratic Convention, or Ted Kennedy’s at the 1980 convention. White came down in favor of education, roads and lower taxes, and good government in general. Cleverly, astoundingly, each of his jabs at Rick Perry was on a substantive, policy issue, and not just a one-liner. No lipstick on pigs, not even a silver foot-in-the-mouth (apologies to Ann Richards, but not to Sarah Palin).
“In delivering one of the most negative speeches by a nominee for Texas governor in modern history, Bill White continues to run a campaign of no substance,” said Perry campaign spokesperson Mark Miner. “Governor Perry’s proven leadership, Texas values, and priorities of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and job creation have made our state the envy of the nation.”
The race is on, and the choices are already very, very clear.
Update:
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
This hoary old fundamentalist institution moved from California to Texas, hoping to take advantage of the generally fundie-friendly environment, and continue a practice of granting masters and doctorate degrees in science education to people who would get jobs in schools and teach creationism instead. They had achieved that goal in California with a lawsuit the state regulators rather botched, and by setting up a special accreditation association that would give a pass to the teaching of non-science.
But when they got to Texas, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) had a couple of alert people who blew the whistle on the process of getting a permit to grant degrees. Real scientists and science educators were brought in to evaluate ICR’s programs. They said the programs were not scientific and do not deserve to be accredited.
And then God intervened. At God’s instructions ICR filed legal papers so bizarre that they would, by themselves, expose ICR as a wacko group. ICR’s loss came on the merits of their case, which were nil — it was summary judgment against ICR. Summary judgment means that, even with all the evidence decided in favor of the losing party, that party loses on the basis of the law.
The court took note of just how bizarre were the papers ICR filed. Frosting on the cake of embarrassment.
Judge Sam Sparks, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, stopped short of admonishing ICR for the briefs, and instead sifted the briefs to find judiciable claims — an act that will probably prevent ICR from getting a friendly hearing in any appeal. Sparks wrote:
Having addressed this primary issue, the Court will proceed to address each of ICRGS’s causes of action in turn, to the extent it is able to understand them. It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information.
Whom God destroys, He first makes mad.
Sparks ruled ICR has no free exercise right to grant non-science degrees, no free speech right, and no due process claim to grant them, either. ICR lost on every count of their complaint.
ThinkProgress highlights an amusing bit of hypocrisy from the Texas GOP, which put in their platform planks calling for the adoption of Arizona-style immigration legislation and for “American English” to be declared the official language of both Texas and the United States — if it’s good enough for Jesus, remember, it’s good enough for us — and then put out a video to attract Latinos to the GOP. In Spanish.
Reminds me of the luncheon for Republican candidates in Michigan a few months ago. When asked if we could make English the official language of the state, one of them began his reply by saying, “Clearly English is the lingua franca of America.”
What are the odds that the people in the ad are real Republicans and not hired actors? If they are real Republican, Texas voters, what are the odds they don’t stand out in a Republican crowd? (See an English version of a similar production here.)
Texas Democrats convene this coming week, in Corpus Christi. At the Demo convention, it’s a real advantage to be able to speak Spanish. The Demo convention will be a gathering of many races, colors and creeds. The veterans honored will be, mostly, Democratic veterans. The Spanish-speaking people will be delegates and candidates. We’ll have fewer Obama-organized people this year than in 2008, but there will be a few thousand relatively newly-active delegates brought in by the Obama organization, which only increases Democratic diversity.
If there is a proposal to the platform committee to make English the official language of Texas, it will be voted down by, among others, Spanish-speaking delegates whose ancestors stood with Travis at the Alamo, and fought with Houston at San Jacinto, as grandchildren and great grandchildren of the original Spanish land grant recipients and descendants of the displaced-but-still-resident Aztecs.
The Democrats will look on people who speak Spanish as having an advantage in education over those of us who don’t speak it fluently, in the American tradition of education for advancement. Being able to speak Spanish is a mark of education, proof of the gathering of knowledge. Laws to prevent Spanish from being spoken are regressive anti-development, anti-commerce, racist, and anti-American.
Education and knowledge are good things. Being able to speak more than one language is a mark of an educated person. What in the world happened to the Republican Party in Texas?
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
It wasn’t in the textbooks before, and after the Texas State Soviet of Education finished work on new social studies standards last month, the Great Cowboy Strike of 1883 remains a topic Texas students probably won’t learn.
In the history of labor in the U.S., the common story leaves out most of the great foment that actually drove progressive politics between, say, 1865 and 1920. Union organization attempts, and other actions by workers to get better work hours and work conditions, just get left behind.
Then there is the sheer incongruity of the idea. A cowboy union? Modern cowboys tend toward conservative politics. Conservatives like to think of cowboys as solitary entrepreneurs, and not as workers in a larger organization that is, in fact, a corporation, where workers might have a few grievances about the fit of the stirrups, the padding of the saddle, the coarseness of the rope, the chafing of the chaps, the quality of the chuck, or the very real dangers and hardships of simply doing a cowboy’s job well.
Until today, I’d not heard of the Great Cowboy Strike of 1883.
COWBOY STRIKE OF 1883. In the two decades after the Civil War the open-range cattle industry dominated the Great Plains, then died and was replaced by closed-range ranching and stock farming. In West Texas during the 1880s new owners, representing eastern and European investment companies, gained control of the ranching industry and brought with them innovations threatening to many ranchhands. Previously, cowboys could take part of their pay in calves, brand mavericks, and even run small herds on their employers’ land. New ranch owners, interested in expanding their holdings and increasing their profits, insisted that the hands work only for wages and claimed mavericks as company property. The work was seasonal. It required long hours and many skills, was dangerous, and paid only an average of forty dollars a month. The ranch owners’ innovations, along with the nature of the work, gave rise to discontent.
In 1883 a group of cowboys began a 2½-month strike against five ranches, the LIT, the LX, the LS, the LE, and the T Anchor,qqv which they believed were controlled by corporations or individuals interested in ranching only as a speculative venture for quick profit. In late February or early March of 1883 crews from the LIT, the LS, and the LX drew up an ultimatum demanding higher wages and submitted it to the ranch owners. Twenty-four men signed it and set March 31 as their strike date. The original organizers of the strike, led by Tom Harris of the LS, established a small strike fund and attempted, with limited success, to persuade all the cowboys in the area of the five ranches to honor the strike. Reports on the number of people involved in the strike ranged from thirty to 325. Actually the number changed as men joined and deserted the walkout.
It was the wrong time to strike. With a full month remaining before the spring roundup, ranchers had plenty of time to hire scabs and strikebreakers, to replace the striking cowboys. Some ranches increased wages, but most of them fired the strikers and made the strikers crawl back to beg for jobs. Santayana’s Ghost is tapping at the chalk board about the potential lessons there. (You should read the whole article at TSHA’s site.)
It didn’t help that the striking cowboys didn’t have a very large strike fund, nor that they drank a lot of the strike fund up prematurely.
The Great Cowboy Strike, unimpressive as it was, is part of a larger story about labor organizing and progressive politics especially outside the cities in that larger Progressive Era, from the Civil War to just after World War I. It involves large corporations running the ranches — often foreign corporations with odd ideas of how to raise cattle, and often with absentee ownership who hired bad managers. The strike talks about how working people were abused in that era, even the supremely independent and uniquely skilled cowboy. It offers wonderful opportunities to improve our telling the story of this nation, don’t you think?
"Hmmm. Sitting here, we might be able to catch a . . . FOUL BALL!" Click thumbnail for larger view
Kathryn scored some great seats, with great parking pass. Rangers ran away with the game, eventually, beat the Mariners 7-1.
Just after I took this panoramic shot, I thought I should put the camera away in case a foul ball should come our way.
And then it did. Fast!
I got a bruise on my left thigh where the little spinning devil first hit, but it spun away and bounced about three rows in back of us. On the way it took out the nachos of the guy next to us. Whoever got the ball probably got a cheesy surprise.
I have the bruise, but lost the ball.
Another surprise: The brätwursts down on the lower level of the Ballpark at Arlington are pretty good — not so good as the bräts at Miller Stadium in Milwaukee last June, but very good.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
Hmmm. News from Beeville is tough to come by when limited to calls that tend to catch school officials before they get to their office or after they go home (early, by most standards — but it’s summer, so we cut ’em some slack).
by Scott Reese Willey
As world leaders meet in Copenhagen to draft legislation to rein in the release of greenhouse gases and stem climate change, an R.A. Hall Elementary School student is questioning the science supporting global warming.
Caption from Beeville Bee-Picayune: A.C. Jones High School student Zachary Johnson, above, looks over a science experiment entered in R.A. Hall’s annual science fair. Zachary and other members of the high school’s science club judged the exhibits. Photo from, and read more at: mySouTex.com - Conclusion ‘pretty creative’
“There is not enough evidence to prove global warming is occurring,” fourth-grader Julisa Raquel Castillo concluded in a science project she entered in the campus’ annual science fair on Tuesday.
Julisa studied temperatures in Beeville for the past 109 years to develop her conclusion.
She researched online data basis of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, the National Weather Service, and checked out books on climate change at the Joe Barnhart Bee County Library.
Her findings:
• temperatures rose and fell from 1900 to 1950.
• temperatures in Beeville cooled down over a 20-year period beginning in 1955 and ending in 1975.
• Since 2001, temperatures in Beeville have grown cooler year after year.
Close to 200 R.A. Hall students entered projects in this year’s science fair, said organizer Denise Salvagno, who also teaches the school’s gifted and talented students.
Fourth- and fifth-graders were required to enter projects as part of class work; however, students in grades first, second and third could enter projects if they desired.
Students in Ben Barris’ science club at A.C. Jones High School judged the projects.
“Some of these projects are pretty creative,” said Zachary Johnson, a senior at A.C. Jones and one of the judges. “You can tell a lot of the students put a lot of effort into their projects. Some of them didn’t put much effort into it but a lot of them did and, overall, I’m impressed with what I am seeing.”
Fourth-grader Kaleb Maguire proved that all tap water in Beeville was the same quality.
He took samples of water at 10 different sites across town and came to the conclusion that because the water originated at the same source — the city’s fresh water plant — the samples contained the same amount of alkalinity, pH and free chlorine.
Fourth-grader Amber Martinez concluded that worms subjected to music were more alert than those not.
And fourth-grader Sam Waters’ project was no doubt much enjoyed by his pet pooch, Lucky.
Sam wanted to know which meat his dog would like more. Turns out Lucky preferred chicken over both hotdogs and sausage.
Fifth-grader Savannah Gonzales found out that ants prefer cheese over sugar, but classmate Misty Nienhouse concluded that ants preferred sugar over cheese. Tessa Giannini’s science project also seemed to prove that ants preferred sugar over cheese, bread or anything else.
However, fourth-grader Faith Hernandez conducted a similar experiment and concluded ants preferred cheese over ham.
Yet, Jose Vivesos, a fourth-grader, concluded that ants prefer sugar water over anything else.
Nathanial Martinez, also a fourth-grader, built a working seismograph and demonstrated how it detected and recorded earthquakes.
Fifth-grader Jamison Hunter decided to see if money in the hand made a difference in someone’s heart rate.
He recorded the heart rate of each volunteer without money in their hand, with one dollar bill in their hand, two one dollar bills in their hand and three one dollar bills in their hand.
His conclusion: “From this experiment, I learned that everyone’s heart rate is different by how much money they hold,” he said. “No two people had the same results even with the test being done the same way.”
Or, until that account is unsuspended by the forces supporting Donald Trump: Follow @FillmoreWhite, the account of the Millard Fillmore White House Library
We've been soaking in the Bathtub for several months, long enough that some of the links we've used have gone to the Great Internet in the Sky.
If you find a dead link, please leave a comment to that post, and tell us what link has expired.
Thanks!
Retired teacher of law, economics, history, AP government, psychology and science. Former speechwriter, press guy and legislative aide in U.S. Senate. Former Department of Education. Former airline real estate, telecom towers, Big 6 (that old!) consultant. Lab and field research in air pollution control.
My blog, Millard Fillmore's Bathtub, is a continuing experiment to test how to use blogs to improve and speed up learning processes for students, perhaps by making some of the courses actually interesting. It is a blog for teachers, to see if we can use blogs. It is for people interested in social studies and social studies education, to see if we can learn to get it right. It's a blog for science fans, to promote good science and good science policy. It's a blog for people interested in good government and how to achieve it.
BS in Mass Communication, University of Utah
Graduate study in Rhetoric and Speech Communication, University of Arizona
JD from the National Law Center, George Washington University
Posted by Ed Darrell 
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 