This could be big

According to KHOU, HISD Superintendent Dr. Saavedra is planning to stop the random drug searches in campus parking lots. Of the 261 searches this year, only 12 were a result of a tip or request.

Even better is the suggestion that if Roberts Elementary Art Teacher Mindy Herrick is no-billed by her grand jury (for possession of drugs on a school campus) and tests "clean" (reportedly this is already the case), then she can return to the classroom.

I'd be thrilled to see both those happen.

Rally at Roberts Elementary for Mindy Herrick

By now, if you've read Lisa Gray's column in the Chronicle or Ericka Mellon's article, you've heard of Mindy Herrick, the Roberts art teacher who was put on administrative leave and is currently facing charges for "having possession" of two Xanax pills in a baggie in her car. There will be a rally in support of her as detailed below.

We hope to have radio, TV, and print media out in force. I'd like you to consider coming, if not for our particular teacher, to express disappointment and displeasure with HISD's "Zero Tolerance" drug policy.

Join us FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20TH AT 5:00 at the Greenbriar entrance to Roberts Elementary as we RALLY IN SUPPORT OF MINDY HERRICK.   Bring your family, your friends and your neighbors to provide the biggest show of support we can for our beloved teacher and friend. Let's show everyone we want Ms Herrick back at Roberts, now!   We'll hear from Ms Herrick's attorney, Kent Schaffer as well as Roberts students who love Ms Herrick and miss her very much.   Posters and signs are welcomed.  

HISD - College Ready?

Ericka Mellon wrote an article about the performance of high school students at HISD schools on a "college ready" assessment in the Houston Chronicle.

The article describes advances HISD has made in the number of "college ready" students on the TAKS Exit Level exam. This is defined (as far as I can tell) by a student receiving a scale score of 2200 in each of the Math and Reading sections of the exam. My first two questions are:

• Do these scale scores correlate with any future success, such as college performance or acceptance?
• Scale scores are a way of applying a "fudge factor" to try to normalize score reporting across different years' tests (just like the SAT scores, for example); are we sure they represent something meaningful? Can they easily be adjusted year to year to affect the numbers?

Here's an example of the scale score issue: One year, a student can get 23 of 36 questions correct, and receive a scale score of 2100. The next year, the test is determined to be "easier", so a student needs 26 of 37 correct for the same scale score. What's not clear to me is that the composition of the 23 or 26 correct affects the student's scale score. On the first test, if a student shows complete mastery of a most topics, and gets 13 wrong representing a 0% mastery of two core topics, can that be the same as a student who misses 13 questions, some here and there, but with a decent grasp of all the concepts? Can you compare two students who get 23 correct - one who gets 23 of the 24 "easy" questions right, and none of the 12 "hard" ones, and a student who gets 23 correct, a mix of hard and easy questions? Does it make sense to map a scale score to just a raw score, or should the questions or their distributions be weighted? You should refer to the TEA web site documenting the conversion of raw scores to scaled scores on the TAKS.

Never mind. Let's say students who meet the scale score test are all equally "ready for college". One of the documents Ms. Mellon attaches at the bottom of her article shows the achievement levels per high school in HISD. The numbers are interesting. DeBakey has an impressive record of preparing their students for the TAKS exit, the best in town. Almost all their kids score at least proficient in Math and Reading. Bellaire last year saw 82% of their kids "pass" in Math, 76% in Reading. Carnegie, 95%/94%, and that's way up from 87%/72% (!!) in 2007. I love the HSPVA numbers, which kind of buck the trend of doing better in math than reading: 84%/96%. Lamar's numbers are 65%/63%.

What does this mean for a parent trying to decide which HS is right for their kid? On the one hand, if you are not worried about your kids passing these standards, maybe these aggregate numbers aren't that important to your individual case. On the other hand, I worry that schools have been or will be looking at these numbers, setting campus goals, and then expending a large number of resources trying to get those numbers up. Although that's not a bad reaction (again, assuming these metrics actually measure something meaningful), in practice, I fear this means that fewer or no resources at those schools will be focused on the students who are in no danger of missing these goals - the advanced kids who could also use more attention to better develop their own skills and interests. I worry more and more that campus educational resources are a zero-sum game, and when the balance shifts inordinately to focusing on bringing the bottom students up, the top students get less attention. What should that balance be?

As parents, should we focus on sending our kids to schools with the best records, assuming their staff already feels confident in their students' performance and can focus on deeper or broader curricula? Or should we worry that schools at the top are there because they're focusing so many resources on passing these tests, and our children may languish?

Health care call in

February 12 is the National Call-in Day for HR 676, which is the House resolution implementing a national single-payer health care system. Please call the Congressional switchboard: 202-224-3121 and ask for your representative's office. You can also call (202-456-1414) or fax (202-456-2461) the White House.

Single payer health care is different from "universal health care" because it eliminates the need for private health insurance plans. This helps realize a few important effects:

• Eliminate the inefficiencies of private plans. The 25% - 30% of our premiums which go toward profit and marketing can be used instead to provide care to more individuals.
• Remove the mis-alignment between profit and health. Insurance companies, to make a profit, routinely deny care to their customers, in what often seem like arbitrary decisions. A governmental single payer plan will need to determine what procedures and items to pay for, but it will at least be nationally consistent, a single set of rules for everyone. Yes, there will be a public organization or committee responsible for those decisions - but such deliberations should take place transparently, with the potential for oversight from all of us who are affected. Compare that to the decisions now made by your insurer - who makes them? Are they in your best interests? Do you feel they are concerned to make sure you're healthy, or do they deliver just enough care so you don't leave, and they can maximize their profit?
• Improve doctor choice. Current insurance plans exclude doctors and hospitals, forcing you to choose providers "in the plan". With a single payer, everyone is in the plan.
• Improve the competitiveness of American firms. Firms employing American workers have to pay inflated premiums (see the inefficiencies point above) for health care for their workers. Firms in almost every other developed country have their workers covered under some state-organized plan. Sure, health care has to be paid for somehow; payroll or per-worker taxes are the most likely tool to use. But when everyone's covered, and inefficiencies are squeezed out of the system, it should end up that the cost per worker, for the same level of care, is less under a single-payer plan than in our current environment.
• Potentially mitigate billing errors and issues. I'm on thin ice here because I have no experience dealing with Medicare or Medicaid. Do they pay on time, and in full? Dealing with a single payer may make it unnecessary for a practice or hospital to have a large staff dedicated to collecting payment from insurers. The process may be streamlined, saving time and money for everyone involved.
• Implement a single formulary for prescription drugs, allowing the negotiation of reasonable prices for such a huge market commitment. Yes, this would set a single price for each drug; it would have to be reasonable enough for drug makers to be able to fund research into new drugs. It may end up that the market shifts a bit; drug research and drug manufacture may be split up under some compulsory licensing scheme. A drug researcher would take on the costs of developing new drugs, typically with access to federal funds; once a drug (or device) is developed and tested, the organization would recoup the costs from licensing the resulting patents to manufacturers. A robust market in manufacture could help drive the cost to the consumer down.

A health care market under HR 676 would potentially look dramatically different from what we have now; some companies and segments will be unnecessary and disappear, and others will change dramatically. That's fine with me, because it seems the system we have now is fundamentally broken, and is not delivering the care we deserve for the dollars we're pouring in.

Get out of jail, free

The Houston Chronicle has an article about technology at the Houston Municipal Court system. The court's computer network has been hit, hard, by a virus - the report suggests Conficker but the chief technical director for the City doesn't think so. The effects include a shutdown of the muni court on Friday, and a suspension for arrests for Class C misdemeanors.

To me it seems clear there are a number of lessons to learn:

1. Keep your critical computers away from the Internet. There are computers which are necessary for your department to function, and then there are the computers people use for less critical purposes. Think strongly about keeping an "air gap" between your critical infrastructure and the Internet.
2. Avoid an operating system monoculture. Another hard thing to do - it's a trade-off between being easy to manage (the Southwest Airlines approach) and being robust. Having even 20% of your computers running something other than Windows can mean the difference between an inconvenient virus attack, and shutting down your courts for the weekend.
3. Migrate off Microsoft Windows. It's a bug-ridden virus magnet.The sooner you move away from MS Windows on your critical infrastructure machines, the sooner you become more resistant to viruses and worms.