All Teachers Fired at Underperforming School in Rhode Island

[chanel]

Chanel the pragmatist here. How will they fill these positions with qualified people? Substitutes? Yeah that'll work - not.

A community gets the schools that they want. Curriculum and standards are set by the state, yet if you compare the test scores in Cherry Hill to those in Camden, it's like comparing Japan to Uganda. Money does not matter. Camden gets twice as much as Cherry Hill. Its the parents and gasp - dare I say it - the quality of the students. Duh.

The community did not demand this firing. And the community will be satisfied with whatever ill-qualified replacements take over. A baby sitter is still a baby sitter.

I'd love to see a followup to this in 5 years. My prediction is not very rosy.

 

[bodecea]

Chanel the pragmatist here. How will they fill these positions with qualified people? Substitutes? Yeah that'll work - not.

A community gets the schools that they want. Curriculum and standards are set by the state, yet if you compare the test scores in Cherry Hill to those in Camden, it's like comparing Japan to Uganda. Money does not matter. Camden gets twice as much as Cherry Hill. Its the parents and gasp - dare I say it - the quality of the students. Duh.

The community did not demand this firing. And the community will be satisfied with whatever ill-qualified replacements take over. A baby sitter is still a baby sitter.

I'd love to see a followup to this in 5 years. My prediction is not very rosy.

Nor is mine. Let us look at the lesson just learned by these students, shall we?

Student to new teacher "Better just give me A's and the answers to the tests or else we'll make sure you get fired like the last batch."

 

[chanel]

Exactly. And like most new teachers "being liked" and not "bothering the principle" will set the tone for discipline. The kids will be running the show.

My guess is even though there was no accountability piece for the parents and students in the first attempt at reform, there will be one with the next try. I'd put a wager on it.

 

[Annie]

Progressive education is student-centered education based on professional and reform. Standardized high-stakes testing is not progressive education. You are misusing the term. Where charter schools work well is a combination of involved parents and student-centered education.

And most private schools succeed for two reasons. One, they require parents to participate and volunteer a certain set number of hours per school year, and two, if the student does not do well, they are asked to leave.

Can public schools do these things?

I've been either a student, parent or teacher in private schools for nearly 40 years. Never has it been that easy to have kids leave because they didn't want to work or parents were disinterested. In all those years, 2 kids were 'asked to leave.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

Chanel the pragmatist here. How will they fill these positions with qualified people? Substitutes? Yeah that'll work - not.

A community gets the schools that they want. Curriculum and standards are set by the state, yet if you compare the test scores in Cherry Hill to those in Camden, it's like comparing Japan to Uganda. Money does not matter. Camden gets twice as much as Cherry Hill. Its the parents and gasp - dare I say it - the quality of the students. Duh.

The community did not demand this firing. And the community will be satisfied with whatever ill-qualified replacements take over. A baby sitter is still a baby sitter.

I'd love to see a followup to this in 5 years. My prediction is not very rosy.

Nor is mine. Let us look at the lesson just learned by these students, shall we?

Student to new teacher "Better just give me A's and the answers to the tests or else we'll make sure you get fired like the last batch."

It has, of late, become far easier to identify poor teachers. The grades of students can be statistically matched with the teacher that taught them.

Nor can teachers give the answers, as, in NYState, the Regents exams are brought in sealed and kept under lock and key until date and time of exam.

" Thanks to widespread standardized testing that matches student learning to his classroom teacher, we can now do a better job of identifying poor teachers. Modern statistical techniques allow researchers to measure a teacher’s independent contribution to his students’ learning. These techniques are not perfect, but they do raise red flags. We should use them."Getting Rid of Bad Teachers - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com


In NYCity, this month, the mayor has directed that this method be used when giving tenure.

Changes are blowin' in the wind.

 

[chanel]

Very rarely are kids asked to leave our local Catholic school either, but for a kid with discipline problems, there is generally a "contract" and at least the threat of expulsion if behavior does not improve. We don't have that power in public school. The kids are giveen safety net after safety net until they end up in an "alternative program" which in NJ, means a shorter day and a guaranteed diploma. That's why our graduation rate is the highest in the country. A "right to an education" has been interpreted as the "right to a HS diploma" What a farce.

 

[Samson]

That is is because money isn't always the answer.

That is obvious.

There are socioeconomic factors in some areas that no matter how much money you throw at it or how many teachers you fire, you will get similar results.

The key is to finding teachers who are driven to teach out of a deep felt need to do so.

Not teachers who are driven to a deep felt need to get an exemption from their work.

LMAO!..

I'm astonished that anyone would ever relate Money and Teaching.

Especially Teachers. Who told them they were gonna be making money????

I actually read the article. The teachers are being fired because they do not want to follow Federal NCLB statutes that require schools that have the lowest scores on the State Test must DO SOMETHING to improve. In R.I. the board wanted the teachers to work longer days without pay increases.

Whether or not you're a teacher, most of whom ALREADY work more than 40 hours/week, would anyone be happy to work MORE for no increase in pay?

Sorry folks, but even teachers aren't this stupid, desperate, or brainwashed "to teach out of a deep felt need to do so."

We want better education, then don't expect slave labor.

 

[chanel]

And its more than a longer work day. The third party evals are huge. My principal is welcome in my classroom any time and may evaluate me however he sees fit. But he would never hold me accountable for my students test scores. He also knows how much dope they smoke.lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

That is obvious.

There are socioeconomic factors in some areas that no matter how much money you throw at it or how many teachers you fire, you will get similar results.

The key is to finding teachers who are driven to teach out of a deep felt need to do so.

Not teachers who are driven to a deep felt need to get an exemption from their work.

LMAO!..

I'm astonished that anyone would ever relate Money and Teaching.

Especially Teachers. Who told them they were gonna be making money????

.

During the sixties, New York City saw a teachers’ strike, followed by the first ever collective bargaining contract for teachers (1962), followed by strikes and contracts in cities across the land. Teaching changed from respected vocation to public employee union, with a corresponding change from collegiality to labor vs. management between teachers and administrators.
Currently, teachers at top of seniority earn north of 100K, and benefits, and the opportunity to earn more during the school year after school and more for summer school

What would be your explanation for this turn of events?

 

[Samson]

And its more than a longer work day. The third party evals are huge. My principal is welcome in my classroom any time and may evaluate me however he sees fit. But he would never hold me accountable for my students test scores. He also knows how much dope they smoke.lol

"Third Party Evaluations?"

The Feds use the State Test Scores to hold the State accountable, and the State holds the district accountable, and the board decides which of 4 Federally acceptable remediations will happen.

Trickle Down: Teachers will always be the birds in the lowest coup.

In the RI district, they decided to lengthen the school day/year, but NOT pay the teachers more. The teachers said FU (through the Union) and were fired as easily as you would any babysitter who demanded to be paid $10/hr, but you wanted them to work a couple of hours for nothing.

I'm not sure what education will do when it gets what it asks for: Professionals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PoliticalChic, you are merely mouthing talking points. Do you know what progressive education is along with pragmatism, critical thinking principles, instrumentalism, and Deweyism? The charter schools that succeed on this bedrock: it teaches children how to think.

If you are saying that big government is in the way, then, yes, you are 100% right. I have no use for the U.S. Department of Education or any of the state Education agencies or administrations. But if you think going back to 19th-century education is the right path, then I believe you are not only lost but on the wrong track altogether.

Are you attempting to defend a failed pedagogy? Why?

If you read my previous post, you would see that I have noted that traditional education regularly produces not only better prepared students, those with more knowledge and true self-esteem based on achievement, but students without the obnoxious sense of entitlement noted in the WSJ article that you seem not to have consulted.

Yours, and that of the educational establishment, is the kind of resistence that prevents the proven analyses back to Coleman's '66 report, and those which also indicate that parochial schools, private schools, as well as charters, out-perform the public schools on a regular basis, from being implemented.

Data is availble, yet you continue to support a failed thesis. Odd.

Coleman's analysis of the data is not valid. That is a myth. Student-centered and student-constructed educational pedagogies with parental involvement will always create well prepared students who can problem solve and critically think. Your model cannot.

Why you wish to go with an already-failed model is beyond me, other than that you do not understand educational philosophy. However that may be, I will leave you to it.

 

[Samson]

LMAO!..

I'm astonished that anyone would ever relate Money and Teaching.

Especially Teachers. Who told them they were gonna be making money????

.

During the sixties, New York City saw a teachers’ strike, followed by the first ever collective bargaining contract for teachers (1962), followed by strikes and contracts in cities across the land. Teaching changed from respected vocation to public employee union, with a corresponding change from collegiality to labor vs. management between teachers and administrators.
Currently, teachers at top of seniority earn north of 100K, and benefits, and the opportunity to earn more during the school year after school and more for summer school

What would be your explanation for this turn of events?

Women's Liberation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic, you are merely mouthing talking points. Do you know what progressive education is along with pragmatism, critical thinking principles, instrumentalism, and Deweyism? The charter schools that succeed on this bedrock: it teaches children how to think.

If you are saying that big government is in the way, then, yes, you are 100% right. I have no use for the U.S. Department of Education or any of the state Education agencies or administrations. But if you think going back to 19th-century education is the right path, then I believe you are not only lost but on the wrong track altogether.

Are you attempting to defend a failed pedagogy? Why?

If you read my previous post, you would see that I have noted that traditional education regularly produces not only better prepared students, those with more knowledge and true self-esteem based on achievement, but students without the obnoxious sense of entitlement noted in the WSJ article that you seem not to have consulted.

Yours, and that of the educational establishment, is the kind of resistence that prevents the proven analyses back to Coleman's '66 report, and those which also indicate that parochial schools, private schools, as well as charters, out-perform the public schools on a regular basis, from being implemented.

Data is availble, yet you continue to support a failed thesis. Odd.

Coleman's analysis of the data is not valid. That is a myth. Student-centered and student-constructed educational pedagogies with parental involvement will always create well prepared students who can problem solve and critically think. Your model cannot.

Why you wish to go with an already-failed model is beyond me, other than that you do not understand educational philosophy. However that may be, I will leave you to it.

Time for 'The Wylie Coyote Mounting Disaster Award'... and you win!

1. The “Massachusetts miracle,” in which Bay State students’ soaring test scores broke records, was the direct consequence of the state legislature’s passage of the 1993 Education Reform Act, which established knowledge-based standards for all grades and a rigorous testing system linked to the new standards. And those standards, Massachusetts reformers have acknowledged, are Hirsch’s legacy.

a. In the new millennium, Massachusetts students have surged upward on the biennial National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—“the nation’s report card,” as education scholars call it. On the 2005 NAEP tests, Massachusetts ranked first in the nation in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth- and eighth-grade math. It then repeated the feat in 2007. No state had ever scored first in both grades and both subjects in a single year—let alone for two consecutive test cycles. On another reliable test, the Trends in International Math and Science Studies, the state’s fourth-graders last year ranked second globally in science and third in math, while the eighth-graders tied for first in science and placed sixth in math. (States can volunteer, as Massachusetts did, to have their students compared with national averages.) The United States as a whole finished tenth. E. D. Hirsch’s Curriculum for Democracy by Sol Stern, City Journal Autumn 2009

2. By the time Hirsch turned his attention to education reform in the mid-1980s, Romanticism’s triumph was complete. Most public schools, for instance, taught reading through the “whole language” method, which encourages children to guess the meaning of words through context clues rather than to master the English phonetic code. In many schools, a teacher could no longer line up children’s desks in rows facing him; indeed, he found himself banished entirely from the front of the classroom, becoming a “guide on the side” instead of a “sage on the stage.” [In] elementary school, students in the early grades had no desks at all but instead sat in circles on a rug, hoping to re-create the “natural” environment that education progressives believed would facilitate learning. In the 1970s and 1980s, progressive education also absorbed the trendy new doctrines of multiculturalism, postmodernism (with its dogma that objective facts don’t exist), and social-justice teaching. IBID.

3. Could the schools do what they once did—create educated citizens inculcated with the ethical foundations of capitalism? That would require rededicating the schools to “making Americans,” as Hirsch proposes in his forthcoming book. Promisingly, a few public and private schools around the country have replaced the child-centered curriculum with one focused on learning about our culture and its institutions. Hirsch’s “Core Knowledge” curriculum, for instance, introduces kindergartners to the Pilgrims, Independence Day, and George Washington; first-graders to Ben Franklin and the concept of law in society; and second-graders to the Constitution as the foundation of our democracy. Other school reformers, according to David Whitman in Sweating the Small Stuff, have raised the achievement of low-income kids by using a “no excuses” model that teaches bourgeois “virtues like diligence, politeness, cleanliness, and thrift.” But these examples amount only to a tiny handful, swimming against the educational mainstream.
Whatever Happened to the Work Ethic? by Steven Malanga, City Journal Summer 2009

4.. In 1989, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), the chief professional organization for mathematics educators and education faculty, issued Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. The document presented standards for grades K–12, including algebra. The underlying goals of the standards—never made clear to the general public—were social, not academic. Some of the report’s authors, for example, sought to make mathematics “accessible” to low-achieving students, yet meant by this not, say, recruiting more talented undergraduates into teaching but instead the employment of trendy, though empirically unsupported, pedagogical and organizational methods that essentially dumb down math content. Math educators proclaimed a brand-new objective—conveniently indefinable and immeasurable—called “deep conceptual understanding…. As Alan Schoenfeld, the lead author of the high school standards in the 1989 NCTM report, put it, “the traditional curriculum was a vehicle for . . . the perpetuation of privilege The progressive educators, by contrast, support “integrated” approaches to teaching math—that is, teaching topics from all areas of mathematics every year, regardless of logical sequence and student mastery of each step—and they downplay basic arithmetic skills and practice, encouraging kids to use calculators from kindergarten on. ….”
Who Needs Mathematicians for Math, Anyway? by Sandra Stotsky, City Journal 13 November 2009

 

[PoliticalChic]

LMAO!..

I'm astonished that anyone would ever relate Money and Teaching.

Especially Teachers. Who told them they were gonna be making money????

.

During the sixties, New York City saw a teachers’ strike, followed by the first ever collective bargaining contract for teachers (1962), followed by strikes and contracts in cities across the land. Teaching changed from respected vocation to public employee union, with a corresponding change from collegiality to labor vs. management between teachers and administrators.
Currently, teachers at top of seniority earn north of 100K, and benefits, and the opportunity to earn more during the school year after school and more for summer school

What would be your explanation for this turn of events?

Women's Liberation.

The only possible explanation for a post such as your is the excessive use of a certain beverage, 'it-seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time' juice.

 

[Samson]

During the sixties, New York City saw a teachers’ strike, followed by the first ever collective bargaining contract for teachers (1962), followed by strikes and contracts in cities across the land. Teaching changed from respected vocation to public employee union, with a corresponding change from collegiality to labor vs. management between teachers and administrators.
Currently, teachers at top of seniority earn north of 100K, and benefits, and the opportunity to earn more during the school year after school and more for summer school

What would be your explanation for this turn of events?

Women's Liberation.

The only possible explanation for a post such as your is the excessive use of a certain beverage, 'it-seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time' juice.

Hmmm...well, at least you can say you accomplished something today: Reminding Me that It Is Miller Time.

But before I imbibe, I'll explain.

First, Not all teachers are unionized.
Second, $100G's doesn't go far in NYC
Third 1962-1972 reflected a time in which american females wanted "Liberation." From What? Standard Roles; Wife, Mother, Nurse, and TEACHER.

This is when teaching became a "profession," rather than an advocation for spinsters and other unmarried women.

Interestingly, this is also when the quality of teaching began to decline.

Coincidence?

I think not.

 

[Gadawg73]

The teachers were the good kind of teachers and were fired for it.
They flunked the kids because the kids did not do the work to pass.
Tea drinkers always want to blame the government when it is the fault of THE PARENTS.
Only a fool would suggest otherwise.
We have the HOPE scholarship here in Georgia. A 3.0 average in high school gets you fee tuition from gambling $.
So what happens? Gradeinflation is rampant, over a half point rise since HOPE inception.
Americans are fools. The school board is covering THEIR ASS.
Parents raise good students, not teachers. You folks are idiots.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Women's Liberation.

The only possible explanation for a post such as your is the excessive use of a certain beverage, 'it-seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time' juice.

Hmmm...well, at least you can say you accomplished something today: Reminding Me that It Is Miller Time.

But before I imbibe, I'll explain.

First, Not all teachers are unionized.
Second, $100G's doesn't go far in NYC
Third 1962-1972 reflected a time in which american females wanted "Liberation." From What? Standard Roles; Wife, Mother, Nurse, and TEACHER.

This is when teaching became a "profession," rather than an advocation for spinsters and other unmarried women.

Interestingly, this is also when the quality of teaching began to decline.

Coincidence?

I think not.

Let’s light this candle.

First, I speak of of NYC, where ALL public school teachers are unionized.

Second, subjective as all of your points are, $100k plus 27k in benefits, plus another 6-10k in additional what is called 'per session,' overtime does indeed put one in one of the top brackets.[28% if single (assuming USA) plus state tax if any.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080817090654AAiBIGS]

Your third "Third 1962-1972 reflected a time ..." has, of course not a thing to do with the question you were answering. As you seem to have the memory of a mobster on the witness stand, let me remind: your point was that teaching and earning are concepts that have no intersection.

I believe that I have disabused that opinion.

Further, 'This is when teaching became a "profession," ' is, in fact the exact and absolute opposite of what transpired. The profession became a labor union.

"when the quality of teaching began to decline..." Arguably false. Since the Scholastic Aptitude Testing service has identifed 1964 as the crest of scores, with a long downward slide following, I suggest that the decline is more attributable to the choke-hold of progresive education, and should be traced back at least a decade.

And, let us broaden this point, so that even in your inebriated state (don't deny it) you can grasp it: I suggest that with subjective grading, little accountability, and the weak currriculum of progressive education, tied to the iron-clad union contracts and high, yes high pay, many college enrollees looked at what was formerly a difficult, yet rewarding progession and said "why not?".

In summary, it is well beyond the time when teaching was considered a poor paying job.

Well, I must go now, my coach, Mr. Myagi, is helping me prepare for out next confrontation: wax on, wax off, wax on, wax off…

 

[Samson]

The only possible explanation for a post such as your is the excessive use of a certain beverage, 'it-seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time' juice.

Hmmm...well, at least you can say you accomplished something today: Reminding Me that It Is Miller Time.

But before I imbibe, I'll explain.

First, Not all teachers are unionized.
Second, $100G's doesn't go far in NYC
Third 1962-1972 reflected a time in which american females wanted "Liberation." From What? Standard Roles; Wife, Mother, Nurse, and TEACHER.

This is when teaching became a "profession," rather than an advocation for spinsters and other unmarried women.

Interestingly, this is also when the quality of teaching began to decline.

Coincidence?

I think not.

Let’s light this candle.

First, I speak of of NYC, where ALL public school teachers are unionized.

Second, subjective as all of your points are, $100k plus 27k in benefits, plus another 6-10k in additional what is called 'per session,' overtime does indeed put one in one of the top brackets.[28% if single (assuming USA) plus state tax if any.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080817090654AAiBIGS]

The median salary for New York City area workers was $50,820 in 2007

Median salaries for teachers appear to be $62K-70K

Your third "Third 1962-1972 reflected a time ..." has, of course not a thing to do with the question you were answering. As you seem to have the memory of a mobster on the witness stand, let me remind: your point was that teaching and earning are concepts that have no intersection.

I believe that I have disabused that opinion.

Why? My point was that anyone that expects to get wealthy by teaching public school is either stupid or misguided.

[Further, 'This is when teaching became a "profession," ' is, in fact the exact and absolute opposite of what transpired. The profession became a labor union.

"when the quality of teaching began to decline..." Arguably false. Since the Scholastic Aptitude Testing service has identifed 1964 as the crest of scores, with a long downward slide following, I suggest that the decline is more attributable to the choke-hold of progresive education, and should be traced back at least a decade.

You say tomato, I say tomahto: The decline in educational quality coincided with the eruption of Feminist Intolerance for Wimmin being culturally relegated to teaching. Since then, any teacher, rightly or wrongly, will always defend their "professionalism." School boards feed this stupidity because it justifies their demand for "professional" labor, ie., labor that is not "hourly."

[And, let us broaden this point, so that even in your inebriated state (don't deny it) you can grasp it: I suggest that with subjective grading, little accountability, and the weak currriculum of progressive education, tied to the iron-clad union contracts and high, yes high pay, many college enrollees looked at what was formerly a difficult, yet rewarding progession and said "why not?".

I might agree with you except that there is a large supply teachers in Texas, where organized Teacher Unions are Illegal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hmmm...well, at least you can say you accomplished something today: Reminding Me that It Is Miller Time.

But before I imbibe, I'll explain.

First, Not all teachers are unionized.
Second, $100G's doesn't go far in NYC
Third 1962-1972 reflected a time in which american females wanted "Liberation." From What? Standard Roles; Wife, Mother, Nurse, and TEACHER.

This is when teaching became a "profession," rather than an advocation for spinsters and other unmarried women.

Interestingly, this is also when the quality of teaching began to decline.

Coincidence?

I think not.

Let’s light this candle.

First, I speak of of NYC, where ALL public school teachers are unionized.

Second, subjective as all of your points are, $100k plus 27k in benefits, plus another 6-10k in additional what is called 'per session,' overtime does indeed put one in one of the top brackets.[28% if single (assuming USA) plus state tax if any.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080817090654AAiBIGS]

The median salary for New York City area workers was $50,820 in 2007

Median salaries for teachers appear to be $62K-70K





Why? My point was that anyone that expects to get wealthy by teaching public school is either stupid or misguided.

[Further, 'This is when teaching became a "profession," ' is, in fact the exact and absolute opposite of what transpired. The profession became a labor union.

"when the quality of teaching began to decline..." Arguably false. Since the Scholastic Aptitude Testing service has identifed 1964 as the crest of scores, with a long downward slide following, I suggest that the decline is more attributable to the choke-hold of progresive education, and should be traced back at least a decade.

You say tomato, I say tomahto: The decline in educational quality coincided with the eruption of Feminist Intolerance for Wimmin being culturally relegated to teaching. Since then, any teacher, rightly or wrongly, will always defend their "professionalism." School boards feed this stupidity because it justifies their demand for "professional" labor, ie., labor that is not "hourly."

[And, let us broaden this point, so that even in your inebriated state (don't deny it) you can grasp it: I suggest that with subjective grading, little accountability, and the weak currriculum of progressive education, tied to the iron-clad union contracts and high, yes high pay, many college enrollees looked at what was formerly a difficult, yet rewarding progession and said "why not?".

I might agree with you except that there is a large supply teachers in Texas, where organized Teacher Unions are Illegal.

Are you getting to that 3am drunk, almost agreeing with me???

I cannot abide this disgusting turn of events.

 

[Samson]

Let’s light this candle.

First, I speak of of NYC, where ALL public school teachers are unionized.

Second, subjective as all of your points are, $100k plus 27k in benefits, plus another 6-10k in additional what is called 'per session,' overtime does indeed put one in one of the top brackets.[28% if single (assuming USA) plus state tax if any.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080817090654AAiBIGS]

The median salary for New York City area workers was $50,820 in 2007

Median salaries for teachers appear to be $62K-70K





Why? My point was that anyone that expects to get wealthy by teaching public school is either stupid or misguided.



You say tomato, I say tomahto: The decline in educational quality coincided with the eruption of Feminist Intolerance for Wimmin being culturally relegated to teaching. Since then, any teacher, rightly or wrongly, will always defend their "professionalism." School boards feed this stupidity because it justifies their demand for "professional" labor, ie., labor that is not "hourly."

[And, let us broaden this point, so that even in your inebriated state (don't deny it) you can grasp it: I suggest that with subjective grading, little accountability, and the weak currriculum of progressive education, tied to the iron-clad union contracts and high, yes high pay, many college enrollees looked at what was formerly a difficult, yet rewarding progession and said "why not?".

I might agree with you except that there is a large supply teachers in Texas, where organized Teacher Unions are Illegal.

Are you getting to that 3am drunk, almost agreeing with me???

I cannot abide this disgusting turn of events.

Its well past happy hour, and I'm not agreeing with you because your thesis is not universally supported: Since Teacher Unions don't exist in Texas, why would "many college enrollees look at what was formerly a difficult, yet rewarding progession and said 'why not?'."