Transcript Slide 1

Funding Public Education
in
Texas
August 2012
VATAT Conference
Texas Public School
FACTS
Texas Public School Statistics
•
•
•
•
1,021 school districts and 207 charters
8,526 campuses
4.9 million students
50% Hispanic; 31% White and 13%
African American
• 59% Economically Disadvantaged
• 17% LEP
Texas Public School Staff
• 335,000 Teachers
• 663,000 Total Employees
Teacher Profiles
• 77% Female & 23% Male
• Beginning……..6%
• 1-5 yrs……….30%
• Over 20 yrs….17%
Shifting Demographics
• Total student population has increased
by 21% over the last 10 years
• The number of Economically
Disadvantaged students has increased
by one million (2 million to 3 million) in
the last 10 years
New Accountability Standards
• STAAR initiated in 2012
• Increased testing from 19 days to 45
days
• End of Course Exams
• Pass a total of 11 to 15 EOC Exams to
graduate…dependent on graduation
plan
So….With the Change in
Demographics and the
Increase in Student Needs in
addition to Increased
Accountability Standards
one would think that
REDUCING FUNDING would
not be in order….However….
What They Knew
and When They Knew it:
The 2006 School Tax Cut
Created A Structural Deficit
In 2006, the Fiscal Note said that for 2008-2009:
Predicted Cost of Property Tax Reduction
(Buy down from $1.50 to $1.00)
Predicted Amount of New Revenue
(Business Tax)
$14.2 B
Predicted Shortfall
$ 5.9 B
$ 8.3 B
And then the gap grew:
Our $10 Billion Structural Deficit
Bill $
The 82nd Legislature Cut
Spending on Public Education
Underfunded Current Law
• Formula Funding
• Target Revenue
Subtotal
Cut Grant Aid
TOTAL
$2.5 Billion
$1.5 Billion
$4.0 Billion
$1.4 Billion
$5.4 Billion
82nd Legislature Left
Money in Rainy Day Fund
• RDF is designed to pay for ongoing expenses during
an economic recession
• Contrary to the spin, the Legislature did not spend or
commit the RDF—over $6.5 billion remains unappropriated from projected $9.5 billion
• The Legislature even rejected the contingent use of
the RDF
– Howard Amendment would have been spent RDF
to fund enrollment growth
– But only the amount above $6.4 billion already
projected to be in fund at end of 2013
– And only to the extent needed to fund enrollment
growth, but not more than $2.2 billion
82nd Legislature Abandoned
Historical Commitment
to Fund Schools
• Created Regular Program Allotment
Adjustment Factor—change in philosophy
• Allows legislature to adjust funding by a
multiplier that produces an across the board cut
• This is done through appropriations rather than
through regular lawmaking
• Rep. Patrick’s Amendment eliminates this trick
after they write 2014-15 budget
• Watch out for an extension
What Makes the Problem So
Complicated?
Equity
• Every Texas student is equally valuable
and therefore we should invest in each
of them equitably
• Every Texas student should have equal
educational opportunities
• Equitable funding is the only way to
produce adequate funding
• Equal funding WILL NOT provide Equal
Education
Examples of Inequity
Same...
Location
Size
Tax Rate
Revenue
District
Tax Rate*
Revenue**
Alamo Heights
$1.04
$6,243
San Antonio
$1.04
$5,036
Glen Rose
$0.825
$8,424
Diboll
$1.04
$4,881
Austin
$1.079
$6,171
Amarillo
$1.08
$5,094
Lamar Cons.
$1.02
$5,475
Calallen
$1.17
$5,475
Courtesy of Equity Center
As Compared to Our
Neighbors
College Station ISD TR
$5,968
Willis ISD TR
$5,363
Madisonville ISD TR
$5,138
Conroe ISD TR
$5,456
Richards ISD TR
$6,695
New Waverly TR
$5,003
AVG TR= $5,603 vs. HISD $5,131
Additional Revenue=$3.4Million
Local Property Taxes Alone
Can’t Make up the Cut
• At maximum tax rate of $1.17, schools
could only raise about $2.4 billion in
new revenue state wide
• More than a fifth of the districts are
already at the maximum rate of $1.17
• Some districts can’t pass an election,
which is required for any increase over
$1.04.
Example: To Raise More Revenue
HISD Total Tax Rate
$1.21
$1.04 Maintenance and Operations (M&O)
 .17 Debt Service
1 cent tax increase yields $180K
1% salary increase costs $400K
To Change M&O Tax Rate a Tax
Ratification Election (TRE) is Required
It would take a 23 cent M&O Tax rate
increase to offset $4.3 Million Reduction
What Now?
Litigation and Legislation
Litigation
A total of 5 lawsuits have been filed
4 of the 5 have been combined into
one suit
Case will be tried in Travis Count
Court by Judge Dietz…same judge
as West Orange-Cove case
What Will They Argue?
• That the Cap of $1.17 M&O Tax is in
essence a State Wide Property Tax
• That the level of funding is Inadequate
• That Target Revenue is Irrational
• That the current system is Inequitable
• That the current system is unfair to
Taxpayers
What Now?
Legislation
• Revise Current Funding System
• Health care will be “driving the bus” in
the next session
• Politics will come to play since roughly
50% of the House will be freshmen or
sophomores
• New Education Committee Chairs in
both houses
So What Do We Do?
Keep on providing a quality education for all
children;
Adjust our expenditures to match our
revenue…but not without some pain in doing
so;
Continue to work with our elected officials to
seek common ground on funding for public
schools; and
Become actively involved in the quest to find
responsible solutions to a very complex
problem
What Does All This Mean to
My Ag Science Program?
From an Administrator’s View
• What is the view of the typical school
administrator towards Ag Science and
other elective programs?
– Limited knowledge
– Limited understanding
– Consider cost first, benefit second
– Numbers, numbers, numbers
From an Administrator’s View
• Requesting Budget Increases in Any
Form (supplies, equipment, staff, etc)
– First, know your current budget
– Second, understand the budget
development process in the district
– Third, know source of funds (state, federal,
local, activity, etc)
– Fourth, know cost per pupil (this is where
numbers help)
From an Administrator’s View
• Budgetary Changes….must be justified
– Explain reason why current budget is not
sufficient
– Explain how increase will result in
improvement of the program
– Explain how increase will be sufficient for a
specified period of time…avoid repeated
requests for increase
From an Administrator’s View
• Building Relationships with
Administrators
– Involve them in all activities as possible
– Keep them fully informed (even if it hurts)
– Be visible on the campus
– Be visible at school events
– Volunteer to serve on campus and district
committees
– Conduct a QUALITY program
Do’s and Don’ts
•
•
•
•
•
DO
Be actively involved with
elected representatives
Be a team player on the
campus and in the district
Understand the budget
process in your district
Conduct a quality
program
Be realistic in budget
requests
Don’ts
• Whine
• Don’t compare your
program with other
programs on campus
• Sit back and depend on
others to work with
elected representatives
• Expect increases in
funding if numbers are
declining in your program
From an Administrator’s View
Most Common Complaints Heard
1. I only wish they would clean up that mess
around their building.
2. It is a constant battle to get students to
adhere to school rules and the ag teachers
are no help.
3. Wish our ag teacher would be more
communicative.
4. I am not sure why every purchase request is
an emergency with our ag teachers.
The Bottom Line
• Don’t expect huge changes in funding
from the 83rd Legislature
• Work to provide quality programming in
spite of funding or lack of
• Be a LEADER, not a WHINER