Is it really that serious?

In an article in the Corpus Christi Caller Times, dated October 16^th, 2015, titled “Keep Austin Where our State Officials reside” the issue of Proposition 3, which is due to be on the November 3^rd ballot, is discussed.  From the sounds of it, it seems as though the editor can’t make up their minds on being for it or against it as they give arguments from both sides of the fence.  For those that don’t know what Prop 3 is, it is in a nutshell to “do away with the requirement that holders of statewide offices reside in the state capital.”  Not too bad when you think of it in terms of “most other states don’t have the state-capital residency requirement” any longer.  However, as the writer of this editorial points out, since when did our great state of Texas care about what other states are and are not doing?  LOL 

So, in speaking for the elimination of the requirement, I would say that a great point was made when it was brought up that technology is definitely an enabler for officeholders to perform the majority of their jobs away from Austin, should they live elsewhere within the state.  Also, I would say that I find it redundant to force officeholders to reside in Austin, when perhaps they aren’t trying to escape “the tyranny of living in Austin" but in fact maybe have family elsewhere or other opportunities for the other members of their family in a different part of Texas, or maybe they just consider a different city their home.  On a more sentimental and deeper note for the positive side of this Proposition, I am a firm believer that if one is happiest, they are able to perform their job with a much better attitude, outlook, and sense of clarity and more to their full potential.  Being forced to live somewhere that one may not be necessarily happy living, can wreak havoc on anyone’s personal lives, thus causing unnecessary distractions, taking their minds away from their job at hand.  

Arguments and or solutions to one of the points from the writer of this:  They mentioned the taxpayer-reimbursed travel expenses are likely to go up if the officeholder doesn’t reside in Austin, and that if he or she doesn’t want to reside in Austin due to the cost of living, then, “what are the chances that the officeholder would pay those expenses out of his or her pocket?”  My response… Have the officeholder pay for those costs if they should choose to move away from Austin.  Now, as for as an officeholder not being able to afford living in Austin?  HAHAHA!  If my husband and myself can support our 3 children on $35,000 or less a year for the past 6 years here, I am positively sure that they can comfortably “make it” here in Austin on their far more significant wages.

One point that I believe this writer was trying to use as a reason against Prop 3, I actually can turn around to a positive FOR Prop 3.  They bring up the point that “Austin is in what's called Central Texas because it's central. “Well, there you go!  If it is in the CENTER of Texas, then what is the problem?  It will take at most 9-10 hours to get to Austin from anywhere else in Texas (and that is given that these officeholders move to somewhere on the outer most part of the Texas border).

Either way, I don’t see the problem in Prop 3 going through.  Regardless the fact that I started off unsure of how I felt, I suppose that I convinced myself more towards Proposition 3 than against it.  Let me know what you think on this matter.    

Are We Crippling Our Youth With the Easy Way Out?

In the opinion section of The Texas Insider, in an article titled "Let's Be Honest About the Cost of Education", dated 10/01/15, Bill Hammond, CEO of Texas Association of Business, discusses the conflict of the funding for our public school districts.  

I gotta say, one minute I think this guy is truly an idiot, then the next, I half ass agree with him on some (if not most) points.  So, I wonder if this guy is wishy-washy himself?  He points out the "pitifully low rate of college readiness of our high school graduates, how they are at 27% (ACT Report), and 31% (SAT Report), but yet seems to be against any kind of raise in funding.  It is a well known fact that the school districts are unfortunately, ridiculously underfunded.  

The part of his article that I begin agreeing with him, is when he first says, "If the Supreme Court decides that the school finance system should have the goal of college readiness, then the high court also should consider ruling that the state put back into place the requirements that will generate far greater numbers of graduating students who are ready for college or career." 

Then, he proceeds to point out the deficiencies in the school systems.  He points out 6 different areas/points and says that maybe they should be "examined" "for cost savings and reduce the bill."  I may not agree with the cutting the bill part exactly, but I have to say that he does point out a few good points.  For one, he says, "Since the state rates over 90% of the schools as acceptable, regardless of whether their students are on the path to being college ready and indeed takes no action if they are not, the courts ought to examine that fact for cost savings and reduce the bill."  What he saying is definitely something to look into, as all too often even when a child is not passing, the teachers will pass them, because schools are funded based in part on the passing/success rate of that particular school.  

I get that he is saying that if the classes and resources obviously aren't being used (due to lack of requirements in the students), then why not just cut them all together to save money.  However, I don't think that is entirely the best solution to the problem all together, to get the end result that is most desired.  Which is that of college readiness and future success of our up and coming generations.  Although, I do think he was on to something when he mentioned the part of the high courts reinstating the previous requirements, to help achieve the desired results!  I believe that would definitely be a GREAT place to start!  

I think where the state went wrong is to stop "requiring so much of students."  They should be pushing them and requiring them to do better, and if they are falling short of doing EXACTLY that, then they are really doing our children a disservice to say the least!  That being said, if funding is cut in such a significant way, I believe that we are taking away from the students that want to succeed and excel in their studies and their futures.  Then again, they are kids!  What do the majority of them know about their futures?  If they are anything like myself and over half the kids I went to school with, they have no idea what they want to do with their lives or no aspirations to succeed in high school for that means?  They are just worried about the next boyfriend or girlfriend they are going to get, or the football game Friday night!  That is why us as the "responsible adults" in their lives (directly and indirectly) need to take action and make the decision for them, guide them and put any and all tools in their reach and at their disposal!  Not take all resources for success away!  I think that we have enabled and crippled today's youth by not requiring so much from them!  If you set the requirements higher, then perhaps they will naturally set their own bar higher?