Ross Perot as a Leader
Many see the 61-year-old Texas billionaire Ross Perot as the saving grace to a nation of high unemployment, low literacy, and inept national leadership. With a credibility of $3 billion net worth, people hoped that he would run the government as efficiently as he had run his own businesses. In 1962, he founded Electronic Data Systems Corp with $1,000. He later sold it to General Motors for $ 2.5 billion and a seat on GM’s board. However, GM bought back his stake due to clashes with the chairman. Later, Hewlett-Packard acquired the company. He made another billion-dollar company called the Perot Systems and sold it to Dell. Since then, he focused on charity works. He is best known for planning and organizing a commando raid to free two employees working for him from a jail in Iran (Fumento; Guinto).
The public considered Perot to be a conservative because of being a businessman. However, both the right and the left thought otherwise. Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus in Vienna, said that Perot was a populist, citing Perot’s pro position on abortion, gun control, and the collection of more tax revenue from the public. Jeff Faux, President of the Economic Policy Institute, said that Perot did represent the thinking of businessmen but it did not mean he must be characterized as a conservative. Perot merely reflected on what he thought of the American business community beyond Wall Street and Washington. Faux added that Perot called to businessmen who had similar views on taxes, which were needed to increase in closing the federal budget (Fumento).
The increase in tax was equally agreeable to Democrat Governor Mark White and Michael Phillips, a writer and professor in the University of Texas. White had promised when he was elected governor that teachers would get a raise. Phillips said that a tax increase was a must after increasing the quality of education. They got Ross Perot, then a Republican, to head this vision through the Select Committee. Perot, a son of a part-time horse trader and cotton broker, was an Eagle Scout. He was never an athlete. Ironically, he was a mediocre student himself until the 11th grade (Phillips; Levin).
Governor Bill Clements also named Perot as the head of the "Texas War On Drugs" committee back in 1981. However, Perot was convinced that drugs were not entirely the sole problem. Instead, he felt that school days were just a senseless gathering for athletic practices, pep rallies, and band breaks. He expressed these opinions in his speeches. In particular, he criticized the $6.1 million spending for a high school football stadium in Odessa. He insisted that more money must be focused on improving the curricula (Levin). Becoming part of the committee was great for Perot because it gave him the exposure he wanted. When they began proposing school reform, Texas ranked 30th in the nation in teacher pay and 49th in expenditure per pupil. Students from Texas also placed near the lowest position nationwide in a college entrance exam called the Scholastic Aptitude Test scores and 42nd in percentage of high school graduates attending college (Phillips; Stutz).
As the head of the Select Committee, Perot was in charged of writing a plan to ensure that the schools in Texas can adapt to the technological changes in the economy. He was supposed to tackle teacher’s pay as well as the merit pay, including discipline in the classroom, competence, school finance, curriculum, and the dropout rate. When done, he must present information on the financial resources that would be needed to fund for everything. The recommendations, worth $4.2 billion, were approved by the Legislature in a 30-day special session on July 3, 1984 (Phillips; Hobby and Tiede).
Perot was among the most critical members on the panel. According to him, during the drafting of the recommendations, the teachers were too easy on the students, that the students spent too little time on homework and too much time on extracurricular activities. This led to the enactment of the No Pass No Play rule, which prohibited students with failing courses from participating in extracurricular activities and sports for a period of six weeks (“Recent Changes in Public Schools”).
Perot’s Influence in Improving the Education System
In the 1980s, the legislature was firm in its belief that the standard of student achievement should be improved. Thus, this era for the Texas public education system was revolutionary. The Bill 246 in 1981 has swung from a local implementation to a standard system that the state must adhere to. The state developed a mandatory core curriculum for students. In March 1984, the State Board adopted the essential elements contained in Title 19, Chapter 75 of the Texas Administrative Code. The Select Committee was established for the Public Education through the 68th Legislature in June 1983. This committee was required to study and make recommendations based on the vision to carry a quality and effective Texas educational system into the 21st Century. It was directed to study the issues relating to public education, particularly on school finance and investment, theframework of the system, including operating cost, personnel support, transportation, equalization, and the categorical-aid program. Many of the reforms contained in House Bill 72 were enacted in 1984 (Combs).
For this initiative, Perot organized reform bills mandating smaller, more manageable class sizes and expanding pre-kindergarten programs. This bill altered the administration and negligence of the public education system, including its finances and the operations of school districts. Moreover, Perot included the teacher’s professional development in the bill, as well as the issues relating to student programs and extracurricular programs. The latter was known as the “No Pass, No Play” section of the bill. It was designed to motivate high school students to also mind their academic performance and pass their everyday classes .Perot had his own lobbyists to help pass the bills. A reauthorized appointed State Board of Education was also in charge of the responsibility of appropriating the rules for implementing state statutes (Combs; Ivins; Mumby).
Football coaches and fans became upset with the implementation of the new law. It resulted in more than 15% of all varsity football players in the states being benched. Because of the rule, 40% of all junior varsity and freshman players suffered the same fate in the first semester. Moreover, a known high school in Houston lost 90 of its 190 players. 15% of the 39,000 varsity football players and 40% of all junior varsity and freshman players across the state were also sent to the sidelines. Two small high schools even had to cancel the remainder of the season (Stutz; Levin).
The Impact of No Pass No Play Through Time
In 1995, Texas relaxed on the “No Pass No Play” rule. In the following year, students were only ineligible for three weeks. This meant that if they improved their grades then they may continue to practice during the rest of the year. In 2011, lawmakers considered allowing larger elementary classes to save money. However, they backed away from the idea under fierce opposition from teachers. In 2013, graduation tests were a major topic since lawmakers backed away from a previous plan of requiring all high school students to pass 15 end-of-course tests to get a diploma. The Legislature later reduced the number to five tests. Recently, the two nominees for governors Republican Greg Abbott and Democrat Wendy Davis have recommended changes to improve the state’s prekindergarten program. Davis wants the classes to reach more children while Abbott wants to boost the quality of existing programs through financial incentives (Stutz; Ratner).
The only change that happened in the “No Pass No Play” rule since then has been the shortening of the suspension period of failing students from school-sponsored extracurricular activities. When the student pulled his grades up to passing, he would only have to spend three weeks in suspension as opposed to six months. The uproar has long since subsided. They also voted to allow the ones in the brink of failing to at least practice with their team. However, they still cannot play in the games if they have not resolved one or more of their failing classes (Robison; Stutz).
As for the effectiveness of the bill in improving the students’ academic performance, it was seen that in the fourth quarter of 2006, 38% of 9th to11th graders were ineligible for extracurricular activities. After four years, the ineligibility rate was down to 36%. Failure rates tend to fluctuate throughout the school year, with about one-third of all high school students being unable to participate in extracurricular activities. Yet, the figures are averages. In some cases, high schools had ineligibility rates less than 20% (Mumby).
In other institutions, more than half of the student body was ineligible. Still, it’s good that there’s an average of a 2%- drop over the duration of the policy. Reports indicate that the overall number of failing grades has declined. Unfortunately, there are other variables to consider, such as whether the data represented all students. Moreover, the records included even those who were not interested in participating in the extracurricular activities. In this regard, the fluctuations in the failure rates cannot be attributed wholly to “No Pass No Play.” Thus, it is not certain if the overall ineligibility rate is skewed. For a clearer evaluation, the percentage of students in extracurricular activities who become ineligible must be compared to the percentage of those who were able to pull up their grades and later became eligible. As well, the demographic breakdown of the two groups must be determined (Mumby).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the no Pass No Play rule greatly affected the education system. It generally had positive effects such as increasing the academic standards. Through this, it means that students have to work as hard mentally in their studies as they do physically in sports. The students became well rounded and the stereotype of dumb jocks became less of an issue. Also, it would open more doors in their future. According to one of the sources, teenagers could now define their success -- not just through sports -- once they step into adulthood (Ratner).
It is important to note that Ross Perot was crucial in the creation and implementation of this bill. Being a businessman who does not give up and has reached out to help many, Perot has taken the challenges and proven that success is second nature. Even though there had been criticisms against the bill, Perot saw it through. Now, the vision to carry out a quality and effective Texas educational system has taken effect.
Works Cited
Combs, Susan. “Public Education.”Window on State Government. Web. 13 Oct. 2014 <http://www.window.state.tx.us/tpr/btm/btmed/ed01.html>
Fumento, Michael. “Leaders &success.”Investor’s Business Daily. Web. 13 Oct. 2014 <http://www.fumento.com/economy/perot.html>
Guinto, Joseph. “A New Startup, EDS.” D Magazine. Web. 13 Oct. 2014 <http://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2013/november/dallas-1963-eds- and-h-ross-perot>
Hobby, Billy, and SaraleeTiede. “Billy Hobby on the 1984 Education Reform Battle.” <http://www.texastribune.org/2010/09/02/bill-hobby-on-the-1984-education-reform- battle/> [Accessed 13 October 2014]
Ivins, Molly. “Who deserves credit for Texas’ Education improvements?”Creators Syndicate. Web. 13 Oct. 2014<http://www.creators.com/opinion/molly-ivins/who-deserves-credit- for-texas-education-improvements.html>
Levin, Eric. “A Tough New Texas law tosses high school football for a late-season loss.”People Magazine, 24(21). Web. 13 Oct. 2014 <http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20092197,00.html>
Mumby, Cindy. “No pass, No play. No problem? Do school activity eligibility requirements help students.”The Dagger. Web. 13 Oct. 2014 <http://www.daggerpress.com/2010/02/07/no- pass-no-play-no-problem-do-school-activity-eligibility-requirements-help-students/>
Phillips, Michael. “No pass No play take two.”Web. 13 Oct. 2014 <http://jmichaelphillips.blogspot.com/2011/04/no-pass-no-play-texas-school- reform.html>
Ratner, Andrew. “No Pass No Play, no sense.” The Baltimore Sun. Web. 13 Oct 2014 <http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-08-10/news/1996223024_1_howard-rule-in- texas-pepper-spray>
“Recent Changes in Public Schools.” texasalmanac.com. Texas State Historical Association, n.d.
Web. 13 Oct. 2014 < http://www.texasalmanac.com/topics/education/recent-changes-
public-schools>.
Robison, Clay. “Much of No Pass No Play stands the test of time.” Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau. Web. 13 Oct. 2014 http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Much-of- No-pass-No-play-stands-test-of-time-1633718.php.
Stutz, Terrence. “Texas School Reform Law of 1984 still touches millions of students.”Dallas News. Web. 13 Oct. 2014 http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20140706- school-reform-law-of- 1984-still-touches-millions-of-texas-students.ece.
