Thank you for all of the great comments, posts, and followers over this last year. I am currently posting new blog posts to a new address. You can see latest posts at http://educatetexas.wordpress.com.
You can also follow us on Facebook. Search and like “Educate Texas”.
I will keep this blog address for people searching the Internet looking for information on school finance or education in Texas.
Keep fighting the good fight,
Dr. Jerry R. Burkett
Filed under Texas Public Education
As I attend sessions during the Texas Association of School Administrators Midwinter Conference in Austin, Texas, I will post factual statements from presenters. You can also follow commentary on Twitter @DrJerryRBurkett
Update: 3:00 General Session with Commissioner Robert Scott
–Book titled “Carrot Sticks and the Bully Pulpit” promoted for legislators to understand role of federal government in education.
–”Testing has become a perversion of the original intent.”
–Educational Service Centers are in remarkable shape. However, they have not been realigned in over 40 years. It’s time to look at population shifts.
–Scott said he would like to waive the 15% STAAR EOC requirement but he does not have the statutory authority to change it.
–Expects U.S. Dept. of Ed. to produce a report that shows Texas in the top 10 in graduation rates.
–Wants to develop a better school accountability system.
–Arne Duncan and Bill Hammond have motivated the commissioner to stay and fight for education in Texas.
Morning Sessions: 9:00-11:00 am
–The 82nd legislature cut school funding in layered cuts over the course of 2 years. Districts being cut in their 2nd year, will see cuts in a range between 1%-9% depending on that school district’s current target revenue. In other words, the higher a school districts per student WADA, the more the district will have to cut in the 2nd year.
–Texas Education Agency was cut $496 million below 2010-11 levels. Lost 343 employees.
–No legislator wanted to vote on a bill that required $10 billion in cuts to education.
–Legislators kept $1.3 million for student-athlete steroid testing.
–Cuts to education were permanent as the funding formulas were changed to accommodate budget cuts.
–There will be a House Public Ed. hearing on charter schools soon.
–Purchasing co-ops between school districts are being considered in the 83rd.
–The Teacher Retirement System (TRS) will face some issues in the 83rd session suggesting that the TRS fund is not being run effectively.
–There will be a huge turnover of legislators in the Texas House and Senate. These people represent us and need knowledge to make smart decisions.
–83rd legislature will have to address $9 billion in one-time funding for school finance.
–Charter school system is being closely looked at by the Capitol right now.
Filed under Austin, Budget, Charter School, Education, Finance, Public School, State Funding Crisis, Teachers, Texas Public Education
As mentioned in the Texas Observer and Empower Texans.
Through the halls, cafeteria, and gymnasium of a local high school, an entire school district came together to promote a concept traditionally exclusive to non-public education — school choice.
The Grand Prairie Independent School District (GPISD), located in Dallas County, introduced its school choice model to the community on January 21, 2012. GPISD turned South Grand Prairie High School into a showcase for each of their campuses while highlighting schools with individual academies.
The school of choice model offers parents what they have been asking for — to choose a pathway of education for their children. The schools of choice are concept schools that offer students an extension of traditional curriculum, providing students academy options with specialized focus. Under this model, parents and students can choose the type of educational experience that best fits the needs of the individual student. If a student shows a propensity for leadership, fine arts, or math and science, GPISD offers “schools within schools” to advance those interests and skills for their children while also offering traditional schools.
To spread the word about this new concept, the district advertised through newspapers, postcards, Facebook, Twitter, and email to invite parents, teachers, and anyone else interested to take a closer look at GPISD schools.
And the parents responded. The doors opened to welcome parents to the showcase at 10 a.m. Before 11 a.m. all applications for the schools of choice had been distributed.
GPISD presented five elementary school and three middle school campuses as schools of choice:
The district anticipates adding more schools of choice in 2013 with additional pilot programs and increased emphasis on advanced academics. These schools provide many of the benefits and innovation that parents had previously turned to charter schools and private schools to access. The GPISD schools of choice model offers parents the same focused curriculum of charter schools and private schools, but with the accountability structure and access to state of Texas-certified/highly qualified educators required of public school districts.
In the packed gymnasium, principals, teachers, students, and district employees spoke about the progress of their campuses and their plans for the future. I watched parents flock to the schools of choice to learn about their offerings, discuss interests with their children, eagerly fill out transfer applications, and position their children for success.
Through school choice, GPISD is satisfying the desires of its community – providing access to high performing and academically successful campuses that meet the specific needs of the individual students. Despite funding constraints and budget cuts, GPISD is thinking outside of the box and breaking the traditional public education mold. GPISD is a leader, blazing the trail in what will likely become the new norm for school districts.
Governor Perry,
I want to take this opportunity to invite you to my school. I am fortunate to lead a mid-sized elementary school in North Texas that is poised for greatness this school year. Although this is only my first year to lead my school, our students have shown double-digit gains in reading, math and science in all grade levels. We are positioning ourselves to achieve our first TEA Exemplary rating in school history.
How did we do it? Perseverance and dedication. Our students come to school nearly everyday and a select few arrive at school at 6:30. We are not staffed to allow these students in the building this early as many of these students have working parents who are on their way to their second job. Our school is a stop on the way to work. Our students sit outside and wait patiently for the school to open, reading books, and completing homework.
When we are able to open the building, I have two dedicated paraprofessionals who monitor our students through breakfast. We open the computer lab for the older students and the library for younger students. This alleviates the overcrowding we have in our small cafeteria. This also allows us to rotate our students through breakfast. Breakfast is very popular. Most all of our students elect to eat. For many, it is the first meal they have had since lunch at school the day before. I am thankful for the federal government free and reduced lunch program. It benefits nearly 90% of my student body.
After breakfast, we dismiss for classes. You will find the finest teachers greeting students at the door each and every day. We shake hands, give hugs, smile and talk to our students before they even walk into the classroom. We look to make sure students not only have their homework but have gotten enough sleep, are clean, and aren’t wearing the same clothes at the day before. If we do find these things, we notify our counselor and social worker so these professionals can get our families in contact with local charities for food and clothing.
Students are expected to perform to the highest standards set forth by the Texas Education Agency. We do not allow our students to fail. We ensure quality instruction, communicate with our parents, and educate in each subject area according to the student expectation, not the TAKS test expectation. My teachers work tirelessly to plan lessons, attend staff development sessions, analyze data, host parent conferences, complete paperwork, and grade papers. They understand the needs of our students and work hard to meet their needs. We are able to accomplish these tasks on 10% less than we were given by our school district last year and we’ll do it next year with even less.
I invite you to tour my building with me and experience its age and history. My building is named for a famous Texan who once graced the same grounds you walk today and I believe that he would be proud to have such a school named in his honor. However, in my building you will find temporary walls, a leaking gym, and that musty smell that is indicative of building as old as mine. Sadly, it cost more to run my building than some of the newer ones in the district as it is not as energy efficient as it should be.
Governor, on a daily basis, we work to serve a variety of students from many nationalities. My student population is largely Hispanic but my student body is blessed with talented students from El Savador, Honduras, Puerto Rico, Mexico, and Vietnam. We are fortunate to have such a fine collection of cultures and nationalities collected in one school. I encourage you to visit my Pre-K or Kindergarten Dual Language classroom where you will find students learning English and Spanish in all subjects in one room. Even I have been able to learn some Espanol in my short tenure as a principal. Imagine that, my students teaching me!
Despite the many roadblocks we hurdle each day, our students leave my building with a smile. Our school is safe and our students know they are loved. I ask my teacher to love their students and I ask my students to love each other. As long as we work to respect everyone and the needs they come to us with, we can succeed.
I realize that you had your own personal needs to fulfill when you restructured the tax code in 2006. You needed to be re-elected and it made for great debate fodder against Chris Bell and Carolyn Keeton Strayhorn who warned you against restructuring that same code. I understand that your approval ratings were down and you needed to remind your Republican supporters that you were on their side. However, since then, you have succeeded in steadily pulling money each and every year from your state school districts yet raising the requirements and expectations of those same districts. You have asked us to perform with higher expectations and lower funding. Yet, we have persevered and we are dedicated.
Governor, I implore you to rethink the structural tax deficit that was created in 2006. Using the rainy day fund will only plug the hole, it will not fix the problem. Imagine how much more your school districts could do with the proper funding. I am not asking for more funding, I am only asking what is necessary. Right now, we do not have what is necessary.
I hope you find the time to visit my school. You will find the finest students in all of North Texas working hard each and every day to meet our expectations. The only thing they expect from you is the funding necessary for them to be guaranteed what our state constitution requires for all students, “to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.”
Sincerely,
Dr. Jerry R. Burkett, Proud Principal
Filed under Austin, Budget, College, Curriculum, Dallas, Education, Elementary, Finance, Fort Worth, Grand Prairie, Instruction, Kindergarten, Learning, Politics, Public School, Save Texas Schools, School, School Districts, Secondary, STAAR, State Funding Crisis, Teachers, Teaching, Texas, Texas Education Agency, Texas Public Education, Texas State Legislature, Uncategorized
Image via Wikipedia
After a long and eventful legislative session that has been riddled with Tea Party interest and pressure, we saw the defunding of education. For the first time since 1949, public education in Texas will not be able to account for its growing student population thanks to a massive budget deficit that was caused by a tax rate decompression put into effect in 2006. This property owner tax break proved to be the most significant factor in causing the $27 billion shortfall faced by the state of Texas in 2010.
School districts across the state braced for the cuts the legislature was proposing with deficit projections that seemed to changed weekly. Up to $4 billion dollars will be cut from public education during a time when the rigors of standardized testing and state accountability will increase instructional pressure on schools and stretch thin precious resources. These cuts will also come as Texas continued to add an average of 80,000 students per year.
In both anticipation and as a result, school districts across the state turned to the only recourse that was allowed under the law in 2006, a Tax Ratification Election (TRE). The 2006 decompression lowered property taxes from $1.50 per $100 property valuation to $1.04 (or lower in some cases depending on whether the school district was capped locally). The state allowed a provision in the law for school districts to recapture property revenues on the local level through a proposed TRE. The school district could ask local property owners for more revenue through property taxes up to $1.17 per $100 property valuation.
School districts have always had the power to call a TRE, but the practice was rare since funding from the state had always been adequate until 2006. Since 2006, 362 school districts have requested a tax ratification election from the voters in their attendance zones — a 1,340% increase in yearly elections. In addition, just this year, 49 school districts in the state held bond elections to capture funds to build schools and other facilities to accommodate for the increased student enrollment. Nearly 70% of districts successfully passed their bond elections.
However, the percentages of school districts to successfully ratify a TRE is dropping each year thanks to increased activism from groups that promote a political ideology and have limited understanding of school finance and operations. Groups like the KISD Families for Fiscal Responsibility, Protect the Classroom, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, and other groups loosely or directly affiliated with tea party political groups are among those that spread the rhetoric to “cut spending without raising taxes” and do not not understand nor consider that citizens across the state already received a significant tax cut in 2006.
$1.50 cut to $1.04
School districts are simply asking for a portion of that money back. Not all; the law prevents from asking for all. Only some.
However, the overall trend is clear, as the Tea Party movement has become more involved in the financial affairs of education, the success rate for TRE is decreasing. In the months of May and June of this year, four school district tax ratification elections went to the ballot. Two of the four passed. Among the failed TREs was Keller ISD, which lost the ratification by 17% of the vote. Through debatable rhetoric and political talking points, a largely uniformed public did not realize the state of Texas cuts to public education would likely cost taxpayers through decreased property values and additional expenses to KISD families that will likely outweigh the $0.17 increase requested by the district.
Now Keller ISD will consider cutting bus service for their students. Parents will now have to purchase bus service or find another way. The cost of the paid bus service on an annual basis will outweigh the cost of the proposed tax increase for homeowners that choose to use the pay for service bus transportation.
Next blog: The Model of Success: Canutillo ISD
Related articles
Filed under Austin, Blogroll, Budget, Education, Elementary, Finance, Instruction, Learning, Politics, Public School, Save Texas Schools, School, School Districts, State Funding Crisis, Tax Ratification Election, Teachers, Teaching, Texas, Texas Education Agency, Texas Public Education, Texas State Legislature, Uncategorized
This is a very short blog to compile a list of 7 suggestion sI have for the next Texas Legislative session to help solve not only the Texas school funding crisis but much of our budget issues in general. Feel free to comment and discuss at your leisure:
The Magic 7 to Solve the Texas Education Funding Crisis
1) Repeal current school funding formulas (as it was never intended to be permanent).
2) Review the state’s numerous streams of revenue that are proving inadequate to properly fund not only education but other state services (i.e., online business sales tax).
3) I recommend a redesign of the property tax code, by removing a majority of school funding away from property taxes.
4) Implement other forms of revenue that have been consistently met with resistance (i.e., casino gambling, increased cigarette tax).
5) Repeals of outdated tax rebates and breaks for certain businesses.
6) A 1% increase in the state sales tax to flatten the revenue stream. This would then replace the business margins tax that failed to make up for the lost revenue after the property tax compression in 2006.
7) For education, I recommend a constitutional amendment that requires the state to fund all students at a standard amount (weighted for cost and inflation) with weighted increases for the most needy students. The state would then be REQUIRED to fully fund public education at those levels on a permanent basis.
Filed under Austin, Budget, Curriculum, Dress Code, Education, Finance, Immigration, Instruction, Learning, Politics, Public School, Save Texas Schools, School, School Districts, State Funding Crisis, Tax Ratification Election, Teachers, Teaching, Tenure, Texas, Texas Education Agency, Texas Public Education, Texas State Legislature, Uncategorized
As the 2011-2012 school year begins in Texas, teachers, parents, and students are seeing a new look to their schools that they have never seen before. With $4 billion cuts to education, school districts are feeling the impact of less funding. Here are a few examples of what your local school district might experience this school year.
Budget Crunch
School districts normally rely on budget numbers from the state legislature around June of the legislative session. However, because the state legislature extended into special session (a session that was primarily about school funding and state budget planning), school districts did not receive their final budget numbers until early to late July. As such, districts are now scrambling to balance the hard-to-predict needs of August with delayed budget numbers, forcing school districts to adopt budgets for their school year later than they expected.
What does this mean for schools?–schools will have to purchase much needed supplies at a later time. In some cases, budget money may not be available for schools until September, which means teachers and parents are buying more out of pocket to start the school year.
Missing Textbooks
Another victim of the budget crisis this biennium was the adoption of new textbooks and the purchase of earlier adoptions. Most textbooks in Texas operate on a seven-year cycle, meaning that a particular subject is required for purchase and updating every seven years. There was much debate this session as to whether the state was going to be able to even afford updating the next cycle of books. This would also include the purchase of teacher materials that often come with the textbook adoption. The state did finally make a decision to fund the textbook cycle, but the delay in funding and a new ordering system caused a delay in ordering books as publishers were placed on hold waiting for a final decision from the state.
What this means for schools?–If your district is opening a new school, it will most likely start the year without new books of any subject. Schools are now scrambling to order books and many orders are delayed. Some schools will start the year without the new adoption and could be forced to wait up to 6 weeks for delivery of new books. And this comes at time with schools are preparing to take a new standardized test (STAAR) in the spring.
Fewer Teachers and Aides
Maybe not in the elementary schools (possibly), as grades K-4 are typically protected by a 22-1 student/teacher ratio. However, middle schools and high schools are not required by any law to maintain a capped ratio. So, as teacher cuts became necessary for certain districts, middle and high schools were the likely targets. Also, teacher aides who work in all levels of our schools were most likely the first people cut by districts to save money as these individuals are not on contracts and their termination is easier when compared to teacher contracts. There are also less people to keep schools grounds clean and maintained, to drive buses, to make lunches, to monitor hallways, and to manage state mandated student data and registration.
What this means for schools?–Expect to see overcrowding in classrooms with more students being managed by less adults. This will potentially lead to more discipline problems, less attention for special needs students, more opportunities for bullying, less opportunities for small group instruction, and increased stress on teachers. Some schools could also see 23 or 24 students in some K-4 classroom as the Texas Education Agency may allow waivers to be granted to school districts if there are classes with one or tw0 students over the cap, as the resources may not be available for the districts to hire additional personnel.
Increased Stress on Parents and Students
In some school districts, sending your child to school on the bus is no longer an option. Or, schools have changed the start and end times of the school day to accommodate the new budget. And, some school districts have been forced to cut in-school and after-school programs that benefit students academically, socially, and athletically. To compensate, parents and students are getting up earlier, sitting in traffic longer, changing their work hours, relying on neighbors, purchasing additional resources (inside and outside of school), and spending less quality time with their families to adapt to new schools procedures in their communities.
What this means for schools?–Any of the above mentioned stresses makes for an unhealthy school. Stressed parents, students, and teachers does not make for a good combination for effective learning.
More Students, Less Money
For the first time in nearly 70 years, the state of Texas did not fund for student growth. Texas grows by nearly 80,000 students each year and districts will have less money from the state to equitably and adequately educate these students as required by the state constitution.
What this means for schools?–School districts will have to see other ways to increase their funding. This could include local Tax Rate Elections, bond elections to build more schools and improve buildings, attendance programs to increase student attendance, student fund raising, and other creative means.
Has your school district been affected by state budget cuts? Tell your district’s story to School Budget Cuts in Texas
Related articles
Filed under Austin, Blogroll, Budget, Charter School, Curriculum, Education, Elementary, Finance, Instruction, Learning, Politics, Public School, Rick Perry, Save Texas Schools, School, School Districts, STAAR, State Funding Crisis, Tax Ratification Election, Teachers, Teaching, Texas, Texas Education Agency, Texas Public Education
Image via Wikipedia
A couple of weeks ago. Department of Education secretary, Arne Duncan, criticized Governor Rick Perry for his education policy in Texas. Duncan said he feels ”very, very badly” for the children in Texas and adding that Texas’s school system “has really struggled” under Governor Rick Perry.
Arne Duncan is correct. If Rick Perry plans to be president of the United States, the nation needs to be prepared for a leader whose 12-year tenure as governor has raised questions about the quality of education that Texas students are receiving.
Prior to Rick Perry’s tenure as governor, Texas was looked to by the nation as a front runner for education policy. I would even argue that much of the No Child Left Behind construct was based on policies set forth in Texas under the George W. Bush administration.
However, since Rick Perry took the office of governor, his policies towards education have been lackluster at best and certainly not a worthy of example for the nation to follow, hence Duncan’s attack on Perry and his leadership.
Texas Graduates and Job Creation
Duncan critiques, ”Far too few of their high school graduates are actually prepared to go on to college. I feel very, very badly for the children there. You have seen massive increases in class size. You’ve seen cutbacks in funding. It doesn’t serve the children well. It doesn’t serve the state well. It doesn’t serve the state’s economy well. And ultimately it hurts the country.”
And the Secretary is correct. Since 2000, when Perry took office, public education in Texas, both K-12 and higher education, has taken hits from budgetary and administrative policies. This pasts budget session, the Texas Legislature cut $4 billion from the education budget, refusing to fund growth for 80,000 new students each year.
However, Perry’s campaign is claiming that Texas remains a leader in adopting college and career-ready standards, which has positioned our state for job creation. According to the Dallas Morning News, “there are questions about how much Perry and his policies are to credit for those job gains. Economists agree with Perry that a low state tax rate and limitations on lawsuits help foster business growth. But other factors, such as the state’s booming population and Texas’ oil and gas resources, are also at work. Critics also note that many of the jobs created on Perry’s watch are low-paying and lack benefits.”
Texas ranks 43rd in high school graduation rate with nearly 50% of students in Texas eligible for free and reduced lunch in a state that ranks #1 in the nation in students living in poverty. Addtionally, Texas leads the nation in the number of citizens without a high school diploma. I am not sure which jobs Perry’s campaign is referring to. Seems to be very few college-eligible individuals on that list.
Curriculum Changes
Perry has also touted the changes to the Texas curriculum citing the teaching of intelligent design along side the theory of evolution. Perry has also appointed many of the members of the Texas State Board of Education to include in state curriculum bans on textbooks that promote Islam or paint Christianity in an unfavorable light. The board has also adopted pro-conservative changes to the state curriculum to reflect a different aspect on history that students may not be receiving in this day and age.
Some Texas students will not be hearing about one of my heroes, Thomas Jefferson, as portions of the curriculum and textbooks removed him as an influential writer of 18th century text; including his thoughts on Separation of Church and State. The board also changed the term “capitalism” to “free-enterprise system” and “included a plank to ensure that students learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.”
This controversy has been reported nationwide by the New York Times, CBS News, and the Huffington Post. The significance of the change is rooted in the textbook industry which looks at Texas as a hotbed for funding their industry. Since textbooks are guaranteed by the education fudning allotments in Texas and are provided to school districts free of charge (with some limitations), the textbook industry is aggressive in its sales tactics to the state and even writes books in close alignment with the state curriculum. These same textbooks are often sold to other states with less aggressive textbook funding policies.
In effect, the Texas curriculum helps to write the textbooks which are often used by more than one state in the U.S. Since Texas is a driving force behind many textbook companies, many states in the nation can expect to be using the same books as Texas students.
Next week: Part 2–Education Funding, Charter Schools/Vouchers
Related articles
Filed under Austin, Blogroll, Budget, Curriculum, Education, Finance, Instruction, Learning, Politics, Public School, Save Texas Schools, School, School Districts, STAAR, State Funding Crisis, Teachers, Teaching, Texas, Texas Education Agency, Texas History, Texas Public Education, Texas State Legislature
Image via Wikipedia
“Education is our future and our highest priority.”–Rick Perry
This statement came from a Rick Perry campaign ad that debuted on September 16, 2006 during the 2006 Texas gubernatorial campaign. In the ad, embedded below, you will see Governor Perry in a school library reciting all of the legislative accomplishments of the previous session, including pay raises for teachers, more funding for Texas schools, and directives from the legislature to spend more on classroom instruction.
However, four months earlier in May 2006, Rick Perry received a letter from Carole Keeton Strayhorn, the then Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, stating that the tax plan Governor Perry recommended to the state legislature was “fiscally irresponsible.” Strayhorn warned the governor of deep shortfalls to the state budget and education funding.
“The property tax relief contained in the bill, if it can be financed past 2008, will be quickly eroded by rising property values, and increases in local tax rates forced on local school districts struggling to keep up with rising costs. In as little as five years, the state could be right back in court.”
What happened in 2006?
In 2006, Governor Perry convinced the state legislature to lower property taxes by lowering and capping the maximum taxation level that could be put forth by Texas independent school districts. School tax rates would be lowered from their then cap of $1.50 to $1.33 in the first year and $1.04 in the second year. To replace this funding, a major revenue source for school districts, Governor Perry promised that money lost from the tax compression would be recouped by a state business tax (business margins tax). After much debate and consideration, a legislative special session was called to urge the Texas legislature to pass a comprehensive school finance reform package that included the property tax compression, the business margins tax, and an incentive pay program for teacher. Overall, the package provided a tax reduction of $7 billion over three years to employers and property owners. The package of bills drew broad support from the business community.
The elements of the tax compression were designed to alleviate high property taxes while giving Rick Perry campaign sound bytes for his run for re-election. Perry celebrated the legislature’s support in his debates with Strayhorn and in his campaign ads of the year. Meanwhile, school districts began to brace for the financial blow caused by tax rate decompression.
By conservative estimates by Comptroller Strayhorn (and gubernatorial candidate), school districts would be impacted by ongoing deficits estimated as follow:
2007–$3.4 billion
2008–$4.3 billion
2009–$5.4 billion
2010–$4.9 billion
2011–$5 billion
Unfortunately, Comptroller Strayhorn seems to have had crystal-ball accuracy when she made her predictions ……………………….
Entering the 82nd legislative session, the state of Texas was forced to solve a $27 billion dollar deficit. In their efforts to balance the state budget, the legislature took money out of the Rainy Day Fund to pay debts from the 81st legislative session and then examined state programs for cuts. Education took a $4 billion dollar cut in funding and was not allotted dollars to account for student growth. 160,000 students will enter Texas schools over the next two years. As such, many school districts in Texas are looking for alternate sources of revenue through Tax Rate Elections and revenue shifting to account for the cuts from the state.
In 2006, Rick Perry worked to protect businesses while urging the legislature to pass bills that ultimately hurt education as was warned to him prior to calling special session to “reform” education. The reality is that education was not reformed, it was stripped of funding in a structural deficit leaving local tax payers to recover the losses. Rick Perry claimed to lower property taxes for citizens in 2006; I think the people of Everman, Cisco, Canutillo, Pflugerville, and Birdville ISD would disagree.
Related articles
Filed under Austin, Birdville ISD, Blogroll, Budget, Education, Finance, Instruction, Learning, Politics, Public School, Rick Perry, School, School Districts, State Funding Crisis, Tax Ratification Election, Teachers, Teaching, Texas, Texas Education Agency, Texas Public Education, Texas State Legislature
Image via Wikipedia
To the Honorable Members of the Texas Legislature:
I am sure that all of you are aware that the Texas Taxpayer and Student Fairness Coalition, which represents more than 150 school districts, is suing the state of Texas for inequity and inadequacy of its school funding system. A school funding system that you promised to fix in 2003, but have instead ignored. A school funding system that has grown more complicated and convoluted over time. A school funding system that has left school districts wondering how to manage the educational futures of millions of Texas children.
The plaintiffs in the case are the independent school districts of Hillsboro, Hutto, Nacogdoches, Pflugerville, San Antonio, Taylor and Van. These districts represent many regions of the state with various demographics, tax rates, and property values.This demonstrates the universal discontent with Texas’ school finance that is felt at all corners of the state. This is not an issue of an individual school district that has mismanaged funding – this is a statewide issue.
One of the main issues of the lawsuit addresses funding inequity. State contributions to local districts are based upon per student funding formulas. These formulas vary from school district to school district. Funding formulas in the state range from $3,500 to $10,000 per student. But, those funding formulas are erratic – one school district might receive nearly $2,000 less per student than its neighbor district. And tax rates, property values, and district size seem to have no impact on these formulas. One of the plaintiffs, Van ISD, indicates that their school district receives $2,500 less per student compared to other districts in the state. Thus, Van students receive about $7.3 million dollars a year less than other schools across the state. Is this fair? This law suit has been in the works for months as school districts have scrambled to make ends meet with the cuts inflicted by this year’s legislative session.
But, this isn’t unusual in Texas. Historically this is the way school finance reform is handled in this state. Why is it necessary for you to have your hand forced into action by the Texas State Supreme Court to do what is CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED – to fund education adequately and equitably. Now is the time to step us and perform your duty without a required court order.
Consider this quote from one of your colleagues, Representative Mike Villerreal, who recently commented, “I agree that the school finance system is broken. Students from every community in Texas deserve an opportunity to attend world-class schools, but unfortunately that isn’t the case today. The Legislature’s decision to slash public education this year made a bad situation worse. It’s a shame that we need the courts to force the Legislature into action, but I’m hopeful the end result will be a school finance system that treats kids fairly and produces the future doctors, engineers and teachers that this state needs.”
With more than $4 billion in cuts to education, combined with program and grants cuts and an outdated and broken school funding formula system, isn’t it clear to you now that school districts have had enough. Isn’t it time to stand up and do your job and fix this broken funding system?
I realize as a school administrator and a property owner that education requires funding. However, in recent sessions, it seems that the source of these revenues is a sore subject with many of your colleagues, particularly those that have signed various “pledges” — the latest trend in some legislative circles. Instead of addressing revenue shortfalls, you were urged this session to use the Rainy Day Fund to help plug holes in education. You refused. When asked to search for alternative revenue sources, you chose to hold garage sales by selling state lands rather than long-term issues like broken tax systems or the business margins tax, that doesn’t fulfill promises.
In response, many school districts like Allen, Everman, Cedar Hill, Keller, Plugerville, and Canutillo have sought tax rate elections to raise local revenue to meet the needs of students in their districts. These elections are called in response to your cuts to education, which are further exacerbated by record student growth. As you know, Texas adds 80,000 students per year, but school districts will not have additional funds to educate new students until budget issues are resolved. You have officially thrown up your hands, refused to address the broken funding system, refused to identify new sources of revenue, and left the school districts to their own devices to find ways to make ends meet. In essence, the state of Texas shirked its constitutional responsibility to fund education and has let it fall to the Texas property taxpayer.
This law suit represents school districts finally taking a stand and saying, “We want what is fair, equitable, and adequate for all our students. Fix the system and fix it in the next session.” Please understand, Texas school districts are not asking for more money. They are simply asking for what is owed and constitutionally required. Nothing more, nothing less.
To fix this problem, I recommend the following be considered to fix school funding:
So lawmakers, will you wait while school districts use tax payer funding to sue you into doing the job you were elected to do? Or will the leaders of this state stand up and fix school finance once and for all? Will you admit that a system that says a child in one school district is worth thousands of dollars more than a child in a comparable district is a failure? Will you recognize that fixing this system might require you to admit that “pledges” to guys named Grover might not be what’s in the best interest of the state of Texas, its children, or its future?
As I recall, your lone pledge was to uphold the constitution of the state of Texas.
Related articles
Image via Wikipedia
*In light of our latest round of school finance law suits facing the Texas Legislature, I was asked by a teacher to explain, in her words, “Why is this happening again?” I am writing this to provide to readers of this blog a brief history of school funding since 1984. Use this information for your staff, teachers, friends, colleagues, and discussions related to school finance in Texas. It is a topic that should not be ignored.
School finance in Texas has a checkered and varied history, as lawmakers in modern eras have sought to meet their state constitutional requirement to provide a free education.
In the late 1980s the state of Texas faced a school funding crisis. This crisis was different than that facing school districts today – this time the issue was property taxes and a school district’s ability to levy funds from local sources. The result of the crisis was several law suits, including a groundbreaking suit known as Edgewood ISD v. Kirby.
Edgewood ISD in the San Antonio area has been a historically poor school district with limited ability to levy property taxes comparable to neighboring districts. For example, home values in Edgewood ISD were relatively low when compared to the affluent Alamo Heights ISD. By sheer comparison of home values, Alamo Heights could levy local taxes at a near 3-1 rate when compared to Edgewood. Since this was the sole source of school funding at the time, the issue of equity was raised in the courts.
Edgewood would win their case as the courts asserted that the issue of equity was contrary to the intent of the constitution’s Texas Education Clause. The state had always provided a minimum per student wealth to school districts with a provision to allow local school districts to levy their own taxes. With that, Edgewood proved inequity thorough their inability to levy taxes equal to property wealthy districts.
The legislative result of this lawsuit was the requirement to develop a new system of funding which ultimately became known as “Robin Hood.” The Robin Hood system was aptly named as it recaptured funds from wealthy school districts and redistributed those funds to poorer school districts in an effort to balance equity. School districts would continue to levy local property taxes, but property wealthy districts would have to send money back to the state for redistribution to property poor districts.
The system successfully achieved the goal of balancing equity. Clearly, property poor school districts benefitted from the program as it gave them increased funding for programs, instructional supplies, teachers, and other needs. Independent School Districts (also known as County Education Districts) were developed on the county level redistribute funds to school districts on at a local level and more oversight was given to monitor the spending of funds. The program worked well for property poor districts that now had equitable funding to compete with property wealthy districts.
However, Robin Hood was not well received by most property wealthy districts. With the recapture of their local funds by the state, affluent areas were beginning to struggle to meet growing student populations, housing booms, and cost of instruction. With the increased student growth in the 1990s and a robust economy, the cost of education was rising and districts were forced to raise taxes to meet the needs of students; particularly in wealthy districts whose budgets were shrinking each year from recapture. By the late 1990s, nearly 10 years into Robin Hood, most school districts in the state of Texas had reached the state-mandated property tax cap of $1.50 per $100 valuation of a property.
As costs continued to rise, as well as frustrations over recapture, a contingent of property wealthy school districts sued the state of Texas to again fix school funding; this time over both equity and adequacy. Additionally, they challenged the legal authority of the state to issue a statewide property tax (unconstitutional in the state of Texas), which became evident with nearly 95% of the school districts in the state capped at $1.50.
The suit resulted in our current funding formula system, which is a system that takes into account a variety of funding factors known as weights to distribute funds from the state back to the school districts. These weights take into account technology, programs such as special education, and bilingual education, as well as other costs to education. Funding considerations are also made for regional variations in costs of living, as well as areas that experience declining property values. (“How Did We Get to This Point”– https://texaspubliceducation.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/texas-school-finance-how-did-we-get-to-this-point/)
With the state promising to pick up some of the slack from the cost incurred by levying local property taxes, in 2006 the state lowered, or compressed, the local property tax rate for school districts from $1.50 to $1.04 (or lower in some areas). The state promised to make up the difference in funding through state revenues and reduced the burden on property owners.
However, that promise has proved challenging for the state of Texas as their biennial contribution to school districts has steadily declined. To make up the difference, the state instated a tax on businesses in the state which has fallen short of expectations (the tax is currently being challenged in the Texas State Supreme Court as an income tax on business). In addition, with increased foreclosures and decreasing property values across the state, localities have struggled to make up the difference in funding for local districts.
Lastly, the formulas used to process state funds to local districts has proven itself broken and inadequate, giving some school districts significant discrepancies in per student funding when compared to other districts. (“My Kid is Worth More Than Your Kid”– https://texaspubliceducation.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/my-kid-is-worth-more-than-your-kid-a-tale-of-inequities-in-school-funding/)
Now, with nearly $5 billion cut to education funding from the state in 2011, school districts are again suing the state of Texas to fix our broken funding system in the name of equity and adequacy. (“Open Letter to the Texas State Legislature”–https://texaspubliceducation.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/open-letter-to-the-texas-state-legislature/
