Lone Star State's Public Education Financial Crisis

Source: https://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/school-daze

In response to the “Save the Texas Rally” held on March 11, 2011 at the Texas State Capitol, journalist Abby Rapoport, from the Texas Observer discusses the need for a complete state-wide overhaul on how Texas allocates money to school districts.

Rapoport implies the Save Texas Education Rally, should consider switching its focus towards addressing the financial inequities in “how” Texas allocates funding to school districts. Which will require much more the $3.2 billion band aid, Perry hesitantly agreed to utilize from present Rainy Day funds, days after the Save Texas Schools Rally.

The inequities found within educational funding in Texas are in desperate need of reform. Rapport alludes to vast discrepancies between the funding breakdown between wealthier and poorer school districts. One example given is of Alamo Heights ISD in San Antonio which is made up of predominately Caucasian and wealthy families, and given nearly $1,000 more per student than nearby East Central ISD, a predominately Hispanic district found in a lower income neighborhood. Another example, given cites overt discrepancies within rural school funding. In Cochran County, the Morton ISD despite having almost double the amount of students than neighboring Whiteface Consolidated ISD receives half of what their comparable neighbor receives in state funding.

A brief explanation, of the esoteric and “infamously hard to comprehend” Texas systems of public education is given in the article. Rapoport discusses that the gross inequities which currently exist in Texas school funding are attributed to poor-planning and short-term gains implemented in 2006. After the 2005 regular session, ongoing constituent complaints about rising local property taxes accompanying re-election year served as an impetus for Perry to quickly and carelessly re-vamp school finance reform in Texas. Comptroller John Sharp was appointed to develop a system that would reduce property taxes and develop "other ways" to make up for lost revenue.

Rapport writes, “Sharp proposed a “tax swap”: compress local property taxes by one-third, and replace

the lost revenue with income from a new business tax and hike in cigarette taxes. By the time Perry called a special session in April 2006, he’d garnered widespread support for the tax-swap plan among business groups and school districts. Most lawmakers were happy to support what sounded like an appealing compromise."

Additionally, in 2006 the "formula" used to determine how Texas would now allocate school funding became “frozen” based upon the Cost of Education Index Formula (comprised of the costs of teacher salaries and additional expenses) on file from fiscal year 1989. This Cost of Educational Index Formula measure was paired with the amount districts could raise in their own tax bases. The disparate tax base rates schools could generate on their own resulted in the pervasive and systemic inequity which now runs rampant within Texas school systems.

“Sense went out the window in 2006...rather than go for a systemic solution, the Legislature opted for what they said would be a temporary quick fix. They would add money and freeze district funding at a certain amount per average daily numbers of students.”

Despite warning from the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), that “swapping-taxes “would leave Texas in a $5 billion deficit each passing year, the plan passed almost unanimously. Five years later, it turns out the LBB was literally right on the money, and here we sit with a $27 billion deficit looming over Texas.

One must consider which school districts will truly bear the blow of the reduced school financing measures. The present inefficient and esoteric educational funding system now implemented in Texas allocates more money to wealthier districts which are comparable in size to other school districts located in poorer areas. The fear which accompanies the catastrophic budget deficit in Texas public education is whether districts in poorer areas will be held to the same budget cuts effecting their wealthier counterparts. Unfortunately, the fear has already become realized as alternative, charter, and lower-income schools tend to be first in line on the guillotine for school closure. Thus, the full brunt of the budget deficits and inequitable funding system presented within the 82^nd legislatures seems to fall upon the disadvantaged students once again.