"Sex Education in Schools"

In “Sex Education in Schools” fellow classmate Rebekah Tharp brings up the question of why sex education is not being taught in Texas schools. Tharp argues that Texas’s schools need to teach children about sex, more specifically Tharp believes sex education should be taught to children between 6^th and 8^th grade. She greatly supports her argument by bringing up the fact that the state of Texas constantly complains about the rate of teenage pregnancies yet it fails to do anything about the issue. Tharp provides further support to her argument by acknowledging the reality that although some people believe sex is something that should be taught in one’s household realistically it is not.

I agree that sex education should be taught in a health class by a medical professional, I for one remember being somewhat talked to about sex in my high school Health class by the school’s soccer coach. Now I cannot speak for everyone, but personally I do not believe a coach can be taken seriously when talking about the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases and the problems faced by teenage pregnancies. I agree giving children knowledge about sex early on in middle school, not high school, will certainly serve as a way of providing children with the proper tools to make better decisions when it comes to sex. I say middle school because that is around the time when puberty begins to kick in. Unfortunately the reality as Rebekah Tharp stated is that, “Texas is a very conservative state”, therefore I unfortunately do not see Texas making teaching sex education mandatory in schools anytime soon.

Giving Schools More Control Over New Exams

        Beginning in the spring the first Texas ninth graders will begin to take the new end-of-course exam known as STAAR. STAAR is a tougher exam that will replace TAKS exams with hope that this new test will better prepare students for college. The new exam has been met with a large amount of negativity from both parents and educators who believe the demands behind the new exam will put too much pressure on students. The negativity has led the leading House Public Education Committee chairman Rob Eissler, to propose a bill that would do away with the exams’ cumulative score requirement which says that a student’s exam scores will count for fifteen percent towards their course grade. As a result the new bill would allow districts to set their own policies on how much an exam weighed on a student’s final grade. The bill was not passed and now there has been an amendment proposed by Thomas Ratliff that would use the Board of Education’s authority to set standards for course credit to offer more “flexibility” to school districts. In order for the amendment proposal to take effect this spring it has to be on the agenda for the November board meeting.

         I completely disagree with the amendment proposal because the base behind the STAAR exam is to encourage students to take education seriously and be better prepared for college. If the amendment were to pass it would encourage students to put little to no effort into the new exam. After all why would students try on an exam if it does not count towards their grade? At this point it appears that the only way to improve overall student achievement is to force students to take education seriously by not only implementing the STAAR exam but also counting the exam’s scores for some percentage towards the student’s course grade. Passing this amendment would defeat the whole purpose behind the new exam. As Rob Eissler said, “what it does is deemphasize the end-of-course exam as a statewide assessment and puts more credence on local curriculum application, which kind of defeats the purpose of having a statewide assessment.”

The Real Concern

            In “NewSTAAR Concerns” fellow classmate Claudio Corona discusses the approval by Texas Legislators to replace TAKS exams with a tougher exam known as the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, also known as STAAR. The base behind the approval of STAAR is based on the idea that this new test will better prepare students for the next grade and eventually college. The STARR exam will be tougher on students because Math and Science questions will no longer be multiple choice rather they will be open-ended, students will be required to write two essays as opposed to one when compared to the TAKS exam, and the exam will have a four hour time limit. The exam’s scores will count for fifteen percent towards the student’s course grade, which is a main concern for parents and teachers. If the students do not average a passing grade with the combination of the exam’s score and course grade they will be allowed to retake the test at an attempt to obtain a passing grade. However, the first scores of the exam will determine the student’s Grade Point Average of the year. Anderson High school’s campus parents and teachers have proposed a letter to the school district to halt the mixing of the course grade and exam to determine the student’s GPA.

Claudio Corona argues against the STARR exam and believes that teachers should be attempting to eliminate the exam completely instead of simply fighting the inclusion of STARR to the student’s course grade. Corona argues that the tests scores should not affect the course grade because exams do not correlate to a student’s intelligence. He believes the exam does not take into consideration students whose primary language is not English which in turn will make the exam even more difficult for them.

I agree that exams do not correlate to a student’s intelligence but at the same time I am in favor of implementing STARR. I see why Legislators would approve of such a measure. According to studentsfirst.org, “15-year-olds in the U.S. placed 25th out of 30 countries in math performance and 21st in science performance.” Furthermore despite previous efforts the average scores for 17-year-olds in the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests have “remained stagnant.” I understand that the implementation of STARR does appear a bit extreme but since previous efforts to improve overall student achievement have failed perhaps the only way to see improvement is to force students to take school seriously by implementing this exam. I believe teachers are not to blame for a student’s lack of improvement because as teachers they possess limited power; teachers cannot force students to pay attention.  I believe the parent’s lack of discipline is to blame. Teachers can punish students to a certain extent but even then there is no guarantee that it will have an effect on their behavior, as educators teachers can only do so much. However, what educators can do is support the implementation of a harder exam, such as STARR, that will hopefully encourage students to improve their achievements….keyword being hopefully.  
   

Possible Electric Rate Increases

        Austin Energy is strongly considering on adding a twenty two to thirty dollar fee to the monthly bills of residential customers. This has come about as a result of the various drawbacks that come with using power plants, such as nuclear waste and air pollution. In other words, Austin Energy has decided that it needs to promote energy conservation. Although Austin Energy is planning on adding the flat twenty two to thirty dollar fee it is also proposing to reduce the rates for customers who use small amounts of electricity. Those in favor of this fee argue that the fee is necessary in order to encourage customers to conserve energy. Those that are against implementing the fee argue that the fee will have the exact opposite effect by giving customers less incentive to conserve energy than if Austin Energy were to simply charge customers increasing rates for increasing amounts of electricity.

         I am not in favor of implementing the fee. If Austin Energy implements the flat fee and reduces the rates for customers who use little electricity then the customers who are already conserving energy will still have to pay more than usual as a result they are basically being punished for the extra consumption of those certain customers who use larger amounts of electricity. Since the fee will apply to everyone there will be relatively no incentive for customers to conserve energy. The best solution would be to simply charge more to customers who use a large amount of electricity and less to those who use little electricity. Now this brings up another problem. What is a large amount of electricity? According to the Chairman of a split Electric Utility Commission Phillip Schmandt, which advises the council, no home will see its electric bill rise more than twenty dollars unless it uses more than 1,500 kilowatt-hours a month. So it appears the Electric Utility Commission has decided that anything above 1,500 kilowatt-hours a month is a large amount of electricity. This seems like a reasonable number as according to the U.S.Energy Information Administration, “the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,896 kWh, an average of 908 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per month.”

        And of course another huge problem the fee will certainly result in is a large number of angry customers, which is exactly what Austin Energy does not need when it is “under pressure to sell more electricity—and to sell less of it.”

A Perry Presidency

        Rachel Farris is currently a writer for The Huffington Post who has spoken about social media and communications at UT, LBJ School of Public Affairs, and St. Edward’s University. On August 17 Rachel Farris posted a blog, “What a Rick Perry Presidency Would Look Like for Women”, on her website in which she argues that if Rick Perry were to become President it would result in the restriction of people’s rights, more specifically women’s rights. After reading the title of Farris’s post it appears that her intended audience is women, after reading her entire post it becomes clear as water that women are her intended audience as she repeatedly references laws that directly affect women or their children.

         Farris jokes that Perry’s first order of business would be to create a department that would oversee “approved contraceptive devices under Perry’s watchful eye”, among the top being abstinence. Farris brings up an unnamed 2005 study that found teens in Texas were actually having more sex after undergoing an abstinence program. She goes on to say that even with this study Rick Perry currently stands by the practice not because he has any studies backing him up but because according to an interview with the Texas Tribune, “from my own personal life.” Rachel Farris then brings up a piece of legislation Perry declared an emergency legislation under which Texas’s law requires mandatory transvaginal sonograms for women who are eight to ten weeks pregnant and seeking abortions. She then goes on to joke that “President” Perry’s version of the bill would include an amendment to play Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the U.S.A.” during the procedure. Farris wraps her post up by criticizing how Rick Perry is trying to protect unborn children yet Texas leads the nation in the percentage of children without health insurance.

        I found Rachel Farris’s post to be entertaining yet at the same time a bit disturbing. She criticizes Rick Perry by mocking him yet she provides hard evidence in the form of quotes from Perry and articles about legislations supported by him. I would certainly recommend this article to anyone as it provides entertainment while bringing up some interesting points as well.

"Environmental rules may harm Texas economy"

          Susan Combs argues that recent federal environmental regulations essentially pose a threat to the Texas economy rather than improvement. Combs states that these environmental regulations such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s new cross-state air pollution rule, which targets nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide, is forcing the state’s largest power generator, Luminant, “to idle two generating units and halt operations at three Ignite mines.” Such actions can result in a loss of 500 jobs in Texas. Combs believes that not only will the cross-state air pollution rule result in the loss of Texas jobs but this rule might also result in a raise of electricity rates. Throughout the rest of the article Susan Combs continues to name more federal environmental rules and argue how these rules that are intended to help Texas can result in hurting its economy by leading to the loss of hundreds of jobs.  

          In this article Comb’s intended audience appears to be the average Texan as she appeals to them through the use of the potentiality of job losses and increased electricity rates. The author seems credible because she is not simply ranting on with simple opinion based statements but she is using various environmental regulations as evidence to her claims. Her claims are not over the top, she is not saying that these regulations are a great evil, rather she is simply stating the hazards these regulations pose in an effort to urge Texans to be aware of the events that are taking place around them. The evidence Combs presents is strong in getting her point across that certain environmental regulations pose a great risk to Texas’ already staggering economy. Overall the article is solid in getting its point across and reaching out to the average Texan through the great use of what are essentially scare tactics.

"Texas Water Utility Plans for Drought Worse Than 1950s"

           Looks like it is just getting started… According to Federal scientists La Niña, a Pacific Ocean phenomenon that has been blamed for the current drought, “is back and will strengthen.” At this time Texas’ two major reservoirs, Lake Travis and Lake Buchanan are currently forty percent full. Because of these current conditions the Lower Colorado River Authority plans to meet on September 20 and again on September 21 to discuss reducing or even ending its water sales to downriver farmers next year. These farmers rely on Lower Colorado River Authority water to grow crops, so LCRA’s decision will definitely have an effect on these farmers.

This is interesting not only because it will effect these farmers but because the lower Colorado River Authority is the wholesale supplier of water to Austin and other Central Texas cities. So not only will downriver farmers be affected by LCRA’s decision but their decision might affect Austin as well. Austin is currently restricted to once a week watering so if LCRA decides to simply reduce its water sales to these downriver farmers than Austin might be restricted even further.

            As it stands Texas’ two major reservoirs contain 812,000 acre-feet of water but the LCRA fears the amount of water could drop to 640,000 acre-feet by January 1, just 19,000 feet below the lowest these lakes have ever been. The pressure is on; LCRA’s decisions in the coming week will take a toll on Central Texas residents one way or another.