Texas Early Education Funds Flow Through One Model
The battles over Pre-Kindergarten are no place for children. Scarce resources and passionate people make for the political equivalent of street fights.
At the middle of the maelstrom is the State Center for Early Childhood Education, housed within the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston, which has come to dominate Pre-K in Texas. One-third of pre-kindergarten students learn under its model, and its director, Susan Landry, has helped to set statewide standards, create teacher training and bring together public and private facilities.
She’s also made a lot of people very, very angry.
“I always tell people that ...
Comments (6)
suecarpenter
The biggest concern I have with the model is that it doesn't build in an expectation for formal (i.e. college credit) professional development in early childhood education or child development for the participating caregivers. Until our state's professional development system for caregivers of young children fosters higher levels of education for lead teachers with high levels of responsibility, then children will continue to receive a 2nd rate early education. Deep knowledge of child development should underpin all curriculum models. (I know, I know -- salaries are low. But they are equally low in most states, and most states have much higher standards. Why should we aspire to less for our most vulnerable Texans?)
Early Childhood Advocate
chrisguerra
First and foremost, Ms. Rapoport needs to do a better job of distingusihing the pre-k grants that exist. She clearly confuses the TEA-based PK Early Start grant with the Texas School Ready Grant. I have been involved with TEEM as a school administrator since 2002 and am saddened to hear such battles over a program that has transformed my entire classroom and community over the years. What is unfortunate about this article is that the reporter fails to acknowledge that the leaders at the State Center have managed to grow this program despite level funding since 2002. What started out as a small pilot has grown to over 60,000 plus children with the same amount of general revenue ($7.5M) since 2002. Talk about leadership! This model does several things very effectively, but one thing is certain: while the work is hard and that State Center has high expectations of the communities it serves, the most at-risk children and their families experience tremendous grwoth in their success as a result of participation in TEEM. Unfortunately, given most schools' inability to effectively do similar work, this is not a story to be celeberated but rather to be attacked. I am fully aware of Spring Branch's model but am appalled at their special interest politics at taxpayers' expense. I remember last legislative session when I was conducting legislative visits with a delegation of other pre-k advocates and actually heard Susan Kellner, the president of the board of trustuees at Sprinch Branch ISD yelling at Rep. Diane Patrick and demanding that she craft a particular bill on behalf of THEIR district. Talk about a problem! To understand the true success of TEEM and Dr. Landry's work at the State Center, you have to rise above the discourses generated by wealthy individuals and wealthy districts and go and examine, up close, how this model is transforming thousands of lives.
mazzone
Texas' pre-k programs, until the invovlement of the State Center group, have eluded scrutiny for a long time. Districts spent their money as they wished and, no surprise, there are huge amounts of children not showing up ready for school. If you look historically at what special interest groups do on behalf of districts to avoid any responsibility for educating children, the quotes depicted in this story are typical. Where is Spring Branch's data? When do school district's go through external evaluation? Spring Branch has nice new shiny buildings and claims to be a great place for pre-k but why don't reporters go and peer into their little black box, especially given that this school district is rated "acceptable" and for so long has cloaked the performance of their poor young children based on aggregate third grade TAKS scores that drown out these effects due to the scores of middle and upper income children? Perhaps Ms. Rapaport should direct her microphone West of Houston.
nfsbrrpkk
Ms. Rapoport,
Thank you for raising questions about the State Center’s $80,000,000.00 pre-k business venture. How can the State Center and the university sidestep state and federal policies about disclosure of conflicts of interest with corporations that pay royalties? How can the university’s pre-k research, articles, and self-reports be trusted if the university and the individuals writing the reports receive royalties from the publishers and corporations tied to the State Center’s pre-k program? I’m wondering why the State Center lacks transparency, misleads the public, works to discredit critics, and lobbies against voluntary public pre-k for all children in Texas.
mazzone
The previous commenter clearly does not have a firm grasp of intellectual property law. Let me begin with an analagous example: Jonas Salk invented a very powerful vaccine as a university-based researcher. After the vaccine was tested and formalized he was entitled to royalties on every vaccine given. To this day, every time a person receives a vaccination against polio, a royalty is triggered. In Texas and in other states, people who invent things are entitled BY LAW to receive a royalty on those things. However, what the commenter fails to understand in terms of the allegations of royalty payments to the university researchers who have developed ways to teach thousands of kids how to read and thrive in school is that the university and the individual developers at the State Center WAIVE royalties on any materials, vendor-based products, etc. used in grant-based products in Texas even though they are LEGALLY ENTITLED to them. This is pretty admirable, in my opinion. However, if say someone from outside of the state wants to procure something developed by the inventors at the State Center and are not associated with any state-based grant projects, then they are entitled to royalties. If one were to request, via open records, copies of all vendor contracts in partnership with the State Center based on Texas-specific grant work one would find it clearly spelled out that vendors ARE NOT to pay royalties on any products or materials developed by the State Center in conjunction with state-based grant projects. The commenter did get one thing correct in regard to this issue: the university does sidestep one issue; it sidesteps the law by requesting to be exempted from royalty payments in order to better serve the children of the state.
nfsbrrpkk
In Texas, why are pre-k children and their families surrounded by the unintended consequences of the university’s and the State Center’s interpretation of the Bahy-Dole (1980) intellectual property act, interpretation of intellectual property law, lack of disclosure of conflicts of interest, buried royalty making, and imbedded pre-k corporate interests?
Why can’t the readers decide if the contracts provide room for royalties to the university and individuals tied to the State Center’s pre-k program funded by taxpayers through state or federal grants by disclosing all contracts with corporations and royalties paid by corporations since 2003 on the State Center’s website?