There is no doubt that there are problems with Standardized testings in Texas. And one of the main problem has to do with efficiency. But these testings do have their benefits. It's just that these benefits could be much greater.
I do not agree that we should get rid of the entire Texas standardized testings. Instead, we should improve them and make them more efficient. Some of the major problems I see with the standardized testings are the amount of time required from schools each year, the incentives or lack thereof, and how poorly they are structured/organized/administered.
Schools with higher overall scores and performances should be well rewarded. We must create incentives for schools, and the reason for them to compete. This will naturally drive up most schools' overall performance within competitive districts.
And the main reason to keep standardized testings? It is for our tax-paying citizens.
Tax-payers in Texas deserve the right to know how well the schools, they paid for, perform compare to other schools at a national, state and local level. After all, education is one of the main portion of their taxes.
Newborn's blog "Capitol Politics" http://hannahnewborn.blogspot.com/2016/05/staar-testing.html
Sunday, May 8, 2016
Thursday, May 5, 2016
Possible Expansion of Power for the Texas Governor?
The recent trouble involving Attorney General Ken Paxton and Commissioner Sid Miller have led many, including myself, to wonder about their characters, actions and most of all, their future employment for the positions which they currently holds. They both just won their elections not too long ago in 2014, and now their jobs are already somewhat on the line. AG Paxton is facing three felony indictments with two first-degree fraud charges. While Commissioner Miller is under investigation by the Texas Rangers for his State-paid trips. One of the trip was getting an injection called the "Jesus Shot" in Oklahoma; the injection was supposed to cure him from all illnesses.
If AG Paxton and Commissioner Miller are to be removed from their offices, this would grant the Texas Governor Greg Abbot the power to fill in those vacancies. It is part of the governor's executive power to appoint someone to be head of a board or commission when there is a vacancy. His appoints will have to go through senatorial courtesy which are checked, advised, consented and 2/3 approved by the senate. Governor Abbot will, of course, appoint people who he can get work well with, favors him, and essentially to form stronger bonds/team; in other word, an unofficial cabinet. Similarly to the U.S. President Obama and his Cabinet, which consist of different heads of different departments.
It would be a potential expansion of power for the Texas Governor Abbott. Whereas when we have an election for the AG, the commissioner of Agriculture or other executives, the power would belong to the voters.
If AG Paxton and Commissioner Miller are to be removed from their offices, this would grant the Texas Governor Greg Abbot the power to fill in those vacancies. It is part of the governor's executive power to appoint someone to be head of a board or commission when there is a vacancy. His appoints will have to go through senatorial courtesy which are checked, advised, consented and 2/3 approved by the senate. Governor Abbot will, of course, appoint people who he can get work well with, favors him, and essentially to form stronger bonds/team; in other word, an unofficial cabinet. Similarly to the U.S. President Obama and his Cabinet, which consist of different heads of different departments.
It would be a potential expansion of power for the Texas Governor Abbott. Whereas when we have an election for the AG, the commissioner of Agriculture or other executives, the power would belong to the voters.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
The Unforgettable State Blog
Should there be term limits for the Governor of Texas? Definitely, I agree 100% with Sebastian Espinoza, that there should be term limits. But NO to going back to prior laws on Texas Governor term limits like in the past; changing between 2 to 4 to 2 and back to 4 years a term again, no more flip flopping. I think 2-year term is too short, and 4-year term is just right. As for the term limits, I think there should be only between 2 to 3 consecutive 4-year terms, a total of 12 years and not a day more. (Leap year occur every four years, so those 2 to 3 extra days are exceptional). I think if former Governor Rick Perry had not campaign for the U.S. Presidency, he could have stayed as Texas Governor as long as he'd like. We should give those who wish to run for governor more chances. When the State is forced to find a new Governor, it allows the newly elected governor, to introduce, appoint and implement new plans, talents and ideas into the executive branch as well as in Texas.
Thursday, April 7, 2016
EPA: Oil, Gas, Coal stop messing with Texas
The State of Texas should stop opposing and suing the EPA so much and agree to some regulations, at least give the EPA a break. Texas has sued the Obama Administration over 40 times. Former Attorney General and current Governor Greg Abbot filed over 30 of those lawsuits. Many of the lawsuits were on regulations over the toxic pollution from power plants.
One example, the EPA wants the coal-fired power plants to produce less toxic pollution such as sulfate and other gases. The air pollution in Big Bend national park is ruining the scenic views that visitors loved so much. Visitors have claimed some days, the pollution was so bad that the visibility was less than 30 miles far. On good days, which are becoming rarer, they can see over 100 miles away. The National Park Services stated "nearly half of the visibility reduction is due to sulfates." These sulfates are created by coal-fired power plants near by and the industrial processes create white hazes that diminish the scenic landscape. And coal-fired power plants produce a very small percentage of the total energy produced in Texas. The main source of energy production in Texas is from oil, and any regulation on big Texas oil would be very difficult to be agreeable by Texas and the oil industry. So let's just focus on coal for now.
The EPA is only looking out for the future of our a state and our country. And as the threat of climate change is becoming greater and greater, we should watch what we polluted. The majority of Texans support the EPA and its regulations. Because many Texans are concerned about their air, lands, and water. So the state of Texas should start doing what the majority of Texas residents think is best for them and accept EPA's regulations.
EPA opposition will claim that the regulations on oil, gas and coal will harm Texas economically and threaten our employment growth. But the truth is Texas' economy is very diversified. So let's encourage and increase the diversification of our energy production as well as creating new jobs at the same time. We can do this is by increasing greater incentives for oil, gas and coal to produce less pollution as well as for small and big businesses to invest and pursue renewable energy. And of course, I am sure we can negotiate with the Feds to give us millions of dollars with these incentives too. It is inevitable that the renewable energy will be the way of the future, so let's start now.
One example, the EPA wants the coal-fired power plants to produce less toxic pollution such as sulfate and other gases. The air pollution in Big Bend national park is ruining the scenic views that visitors loved so much. Visitors have claimed some days, the pollution was so bad that the visibility was less than 30 miles far. On good days, which are becoming rarer, they can see over 100 miles away. The National Park Services stated "nearly half of the visibility reduction is due to sulfates." These sulfates are created by coal-fired power plants near by and the industrial processes create white hazes that diminish the scenic landscape. And coal-fired power plants produce a very small percentage of the total energy produced in Texas. The main source of energy production in Texas is from oil, and any regulation on big Texas oil would be very difficult to be agreeable by Texas and the oil industry. So let's just focus on coal for now.
The EPA is only looking out for the future of our a state and our country. And as the threat of climate change is becoming greater and greater, we should watch what we polluted. The majority of Texans support the EPA and its regulations. Because many Texans are concerned about their air, lands, and water. So the state of Texas should start doing what the majority of Texas residents think is best for them and accept EPA's regulations.
EPA opposition will claim that the regulations on oil, gas and coal will harm Texas economically and threaten our employment growth. But the truth is Texas' economy is very diversified. So let's encourage and increase the diversification of our energy production as well as creating new jobs at the same time. We can do this is by increasing greater incentives for oil, gas and coal to produce less pollution as well as for small and big businesses to invest and pursue renewable energy. And of course, I am sure we can negotiate with the Feds to give us millions of dollars with these incentives too. It is inevitable that the renewable energy will be the way of the future, so let's start now.
Thursday, March 24, 2016
On March 21, 2016, Greg Degeyter published an article called "It’s time for the legislature to reach out to minorities" on the Bigjollypolitics.com. I had a hard time understanding the article and its title. According to the title, Degeyter suggested that the legislature should get more minorities' involvement. But, what he wrote in the article is a little different from the title. What he really wants is "collaboration" and "cooperation" of minorities on legislation, only "shared" values and no disagreement.
Was he trying to convince the audiences that the legislature need to reach out to more minorities for the open seats and their involvement in the legislature? Or was he trying to promote his plans, lack thereof, on certain issues for the legislature's upcoming session? If his intentions were both, then the article was very poorly written. The author greatly lack credibility, having no hard evidences or proofs to make a strong argument.
Therefore, I can only assumed who his intended audiences are, and are they extreme conservatives who want as little changes possible for the Texas Legislature's bills, policies and programs? Other than more minorities' involvement in the legislature, I find it hard to agree to what he wrote. Most of the readers will find it hard to agree to his article as well. I truly believe, and most readers will agree, that there are way more actions to be taken when tackling issues such as immigration, law enforcement, healthcare, sex trafficking and abortion than his suggestions. But, of course, only the Texas Legislature will decide what is the law.
Was he trying to convince the audiences that the legislature need to reach out to more minorities for the open seats and their involvement in the legislature? Or was he trying to promote his plans, lack thereof, on certain issues for the legislature's upcoming session? If his intentions were both, then the article was very poorly written. The author greatly lack credibility, having no hard evidences or proofs to make a strong argument.
Therefore, I can only assumed who his intended audiences are, and are they extreme conservatives who want as little changes possible for the Texas Legislature's bills, policies and programs? Other than more minorities' involvement in the legislature, I find it hard to agree to what he wrote. Most of the readers will find it hard to agree to his article as well. I truly believe, and most readers will agree, that there are way more actions to be taken when tackling issues such as immigration, law enforcement, healthcare, sex trafficking and abortion than his suggestions. But, of course, only the Texas Legislature will decide what is the law.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Ratliff vs Rinaldi
On February 11, 2016, The editorial board of The Dallas Morning News published a short editorial argues that the Coppell civil engineer and former 2012 Texas House Member Bennett Ratliff is a better candidate in the GOP race for Texas House of Representatives District 115 than Irving attorney and 2014 Texas House Member Matt Rinaldi.
This editorial was written directly toward the Republican voters in Texas House District 115.
The argument is very clear and assumption made is that GOP voters would be better off with Ratliff. There is a political significance of this argument because it matter a lot to the resident of Texas on who will be their Texas House Representative. The author of this article is one of the editor for The Dallas Morning News which is a reputable and credible newspaper in Dallas, Texas.
The editorial stated both Ratliff and Rinaldi are "smart and well-spoken candidates" because they both won before and both wish to improve the "Robin Hood" school finance system, and no new taxes or tolls on transportation. But other than that, the author claimed Ratliff is the better candidate. For example, flexibility, Ratliff had a "stronger record of steering bills into law" by working with both his party and the Democrats in the Texas capital. Ratliff also have experience on education funding, therefore he should be the Texas House Representative for district 115.
However, this editorial did not convince me enough personally. I think the editorial is too short and lacks details on Ratliff and Rinaldi. It also have weak and little evidences to appeal to the targeted audiences, the republican voters of district 115, and leaving them to trust their instincts on who to vote for or not vote at all.
This editorial was written directly toward the Republican voters in Texas House District 115.
The argument is very clear and assumption made is that GOP voters would be better off with Ratliff. There is a political significance of this argument because it matter a lot to the resident of Texas on who will be their Texas House Representative. The author of this article is one of the editor for The Dallas Morning News which is a reputable and credible newspaper in Dallas, Texas.
The editorial stated both Ratliff and Rinaldi are "smart and well-spoken candidates" because they both won before and both wish to improve the "Robin Hood" school finance system, and no new taxes or tolls on transportation. But other than that, the author claimed Ratliff is the better candidate. For example, flexibility, Ratliff had a "stronger record of steering bills into law" by working with both his party and the Democrats in the Texas capital. Ratliff also have experience on education funding, therefore he should be the Texas House Representative for district 115.
However, this editorial did not convince me enough personally. I think the editorial is too short and lacks details on Ratliff and Rinaldi. It also have weak and little evidences to appeal to the targeted audiences, the republican voters of district 115, and leaving them to trust their instincts on who to vote for or not vote at all.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
UT regents ready to spend to be the best
If anyone is interested in University of Texas, Texas politics, money, the health and the medicine field, I think you will enjoy reading this article published by Austin-American Statesman. Not only should you read this article, you should also follow the recent news about the University of Texas System. The Board of Regents will meet in Galveston on February 11th, 2016, and they are prepared to approve more spending on three "high-priority initiatives." One of the initiative is telemedicine, a word I just learned today, which is a combination of telecommunication and clinical health care. The initiatives will be signed, accepted and guaranteed by the Permanent University Fund. Does something sounds familiar? The article also states little details about other programs and spendings. I believe that there will be a lot more money talk going around very, very soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)