Tag Archives: school finance

Gov. Greg Abbott, in his biennial State of the State address on Tuesday, stayed on message about education and taxes, continuing state leaders’ so-far unified focus on bread-and-butter policy reforms in a forum where he has in the past served up red meat.

Speaking in the Texas House to both chambers of the Legislature, Abbott named as emergency items the consensus priorities of school finance reform, teacher pay raises and property tax relief, the issues he and the state’s other top two Republican leaders have trumpeted almost single-mindedly in the months since the midterm elections.

Also topping the governor’s priority list: school safety, disaster response and mental health programs. Abbott’s designation of those priorities allows lawmakers to take up such measures sooner, lifting the usual constitutional limitation that prevents the Legislature from passing bills within the first 60 days of the session.

“Our mission begins with our students,” Abbott said as he began to lay out his legislative priorities. To improve lackluster student outcomes — only 40 percent of third graders reading at grade level by the end of their third grade year, he said; and less than 40 percent of students who took the ACT or SAT being prepared for college — “we must target education funding.”

“That starts with teachers in the classroom. … This session, we must pay our teachers more,” Abbott said, winning his first standing ovation of the speech.

“Rarely has Texas witnessed such a bipartisan and bicameral support for an issue this substantial this early in a session. … To keep this momentum going, I am declaring school finance reform and increasing teacher pay as emergency items,” the governor said to another standing ovation.

Abbott expressed support for a merit-based teacher pay system, praising Dallas ISD’s program as exemplary and asserting that “we must provide incentives to put effective teachers in the schools and classrooms where they are needed the most.”

Abbott pledged, as he did in his inaugural address last month, that this is the year lawmakers will finally unknot the entangled policy issues of school finance and property tax reform. Last week, Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Dennis Bonnen, along with leaders on the issue from both chambers, laid out identical property tax reform bills that they said would help lift the burden of skyrocketing property taxes.

Abbott praised House and Senate leaders for “working together in unprecedented fashion.”

“We can no longer sit idly by while property owners are reduced to tenants of their own property with taxing authorities playing the role of landlord,” the governor said.

In the wake of tragedy last May at Santa Fe High School outside Houston, Abbott said “we must do all we can to make our schools safer.” He praised a proposal from Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound — filed as a priority bill Tuesday morning — that would create a broad-based mental health consortium. He made no mention of gun control measures.

Unlike in his first two state of the state addresses, Abbott did not deem ethics reform an emergency item. After tagging that issue with top priority status in 2015 and 2017, Abbott didn’t mention it this year. Nor did he raise any proposals related to abortion.

Another conspicuous absence from the speech was the voter rolls debacle that has dogged state leaders in recent weeks. Last month, Texas Secretary of State David Whitley flagged for citizenship review nearly 100,000 Texas voters; in the weeks since, the list has been revealed to be deeply flawed, and the state has been sued three times by civil rights groups.

Abbott was vocal about the list when it was first released, and at a press conference last week he stood behind the list as a “work [in progress,]” even as local officials reported that, in some cases, all the names on it were erroneously included. But he made no mention of the list, or of election security, in the high-profile address Tuesday.

And the governor of the nation’s largest border state made little mention of immigration reform beyond a promise to continue to “step up and fully fund our border security program” since “the federal government still has not fulfilled its responsibility.” In their initial budget proposals, both the Texas House and Texas Senate proposed continuing to spend about $800 million on border security over the next biennium.

Author: EMMA PLATOFF – The Texas Tribune

In the state of Texas, if a school district wants to raise operating funds by raising the local tax rate, they have to go to the voters. Public schools in Texas are the only taxing entity that have to ask for voter approval any time they wish to raise taxes.

Of course, in lean times and even good times, most people do not want to have their taxes raised, so school districts must either live within their ever shrinking budgets that will not increase (even if costs do), cut programs or personnel, or figure out some way to convince voters that a tax increase is in their best interest.

Increasing taxes is easier in cities that are property rich –  where the “hit” to the pocketbook is not as pronounced, or where the local population values education. Unfortunately, the two go hand in hand, so it is easier to convince areas of better socio-economic status to raise taxes than distressed areas because they are more likely to have more people that have advanced education degrees and see the value of education. In this case, the rich get richer, the poor, well, they just stay that way.

When an education tax increase fails in Texas, the hew and cry from the local population sounds something like this:

“Districts need to live within their budgets.”

“Schools need to cut back, we had to, so should they.”

Or my particular favorite: “Schools need to adopt the business model.”

“Adopting the business model,” means that public schools districts should try and emulate what businesses do. “Live within their means” is often used by anti-tax advocates, which of course, is NOT a business model at all. (If businesses wish to raise funding, they sell more shares, or raise the price of their products.)

“They have to be frugal.” the person will say. “We are taxed enough!”

A business has to make sure that income covers outgo and of course, and a business must compete for customers.

Fair enough. I sort of see that, and on a simplistic sound-bite kind of way, it makes sense. But that made me wonder, exactly how successful IS that “business model” that we are so proud of, that many tout as the “way to run schools?”

Let’s look first at some statistics from Australia: According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics in all of Australia, beginning in 2013, there were 2,079,666 businesses operating.

Of that group 1,322,342 survived to 2017, or a failure rate of just about 36%, more than 1 in 3. The survival rate for business actually starting in 2013 was even worse, with close to 50% not making it until 2017. I don’t suppose the “business model” for Australia is much different than it is anywhere else.

So, you say, that’s Australia. What about the good old U S of A? We are the seat of capitalism, the heart of democracy, the center of all things consumer oriented. Surely things are different here!

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 50% of businesses with employees survive the first five years. Did you get that? 50% failure rate. One of two businesses close within five years. Within ten years? Only 30% of those original businesses still are open.

The failure rate of US businesses over 10 years is 70%. And that is consistent over decades, good times and bad, recessions and booms. The business “model”, the one that many want educational institutions to follow is one of failure.

As an example, the US Department of Commerce reported that in 2008, 627,200 businesses opened in the US. In that same year 595,600 closed. Statistically speaking, that is almost very close to every business that opens, one closes. That is the “business model” at work. I wonder what would happen if one out of every two schools in the US had to close because we couldn’t “attract customers?”

Yes, there are a few businesses that survive over the course of decades, but they are outliers, not the norm. For every Ford Motor Company, there were thousands and thousand of businesses that could not last, despite the use of the “business model.”

What about titans of industry? Those businesses that are were icons of their times, too big to fail?

Pan Am–Closed–Couldn’t attract customers

Kodak – Closed – Could not change with new technology

Bethlehem Steel –Closed –Couldn’t keep customers or adapt

Polaroid –Closed –Couldn’t attract customers, victim of new technology

Just last week, Toy-R-Us announced they’d be shuttering all of its stores. Once the go to place to get toys in the US, it died a slow painful death. We are watching the once mighty SEARS in a slow-motion death spiral as well, pulling down K-Mart with it.

The once invincible shopping mall is headed towards the dustbin of history as well, and with it, all the stores that relied on that model.

The above list goes on and on. Think how many non-franchised restaurants and bars in your town have lasted more than ten years? Not many.

Yet, this is the model that many people want education to follow.
“Education needs to follow the “business model.” they say.
“Education needs to compete for customers.”
“The income needs to match the outflow.”
“We should run schools like a business.”
“They should hire a business person to run that place!”

Perhaps we can follow the Enron Business Model which caused the near collapse of the energy industry and gouged consumers and investors of billions of dollars. Or the British Petroleum Model which was unable to deal with a giant ecological disaster of their own doing costing them tens of billions of dollars to partially clean up, leaving the lasting effects to fester in the Gulf of Mexico for decades to come that still affects fisherman.

The “Business Model has given the world the “Great Depression,” the Great Recession, numerous other recessions, stagflation, inflation, mini recessions, reverse inflation, and numerous other fun economic troubles.

What other “business model” should we follow? Maybe we should let education follow the business model of the banking industry and the real estate industry, both of which caused a near economic collapse of economies around the world in the last decade. Lehman Bros? AIG? All too big to fail businesses. How about Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac? Even General Motors and Chrysler needed bailouts in order to survive their “business model.”

People even voted for a President because he had a “Business background.” Never mind that most of his businesses declared bankruptcy and he had a history of not paying contractors.

This is the model that many people want public education to follow.

How many businesses in your city are still around that you know of after 5 years? 10? 15? 30? 40? Hard to think of a business in the US that has lasted more than 100 years. Every single one of them that are no longer there were following the “business model.”

All were competing.  All were trying to stay within their means.

And, at the end of the day, for whatever reason, EVERY business goes out of business. EVERY SINGLE ONE. It may take a year, it may take a decade, it may take a century. But in the end, EVERY SINGLE business goes out of business.

That is the business model.

Let the business model in schools adoption begin.

Or better yet, maybe those grumpy Fox News watchers that are all for the adoption of schools-as-business should think a little bit more deeply about what they really are wanting.

Because you need to be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.

***

Author: Tim Holt is an educator and writer, with over 33 years experience in education and opines on education-related topics here and on his own award-winning blog: HoltThink. He values your feedback. Feel free to leave a comment.  Read his previous columns here.

A new season of school finance lies immediately ahead — a new opportunity for the courts to tell the Legislature to do its job or to congratulate it for getting things just right. Bet on the former.

That’s how it usually goes with money for schools. It’s hard to change the mix of funds from state and local taxpayers without making a large group of constituents mad. In fact, the politics are almost impossible — unless the politicians can find some protective cover.

Voters want great schools. Voters want low taxes. Good politicians want to make voters happy.

The wheel of school finance, however, turns every 10 to 15 years and delivers some combination of tax increases and changes in public school policy — from class-size requirements to special provisions for different types of students. It can get a little tense.

Unpopular changes are more palatable, it turns out, if the politicians can shift the blame to someone else — like the courts.

Within weeks, the Texas Supreme Court will hear the latest school finance case. Lawyers are filing briefs this month, and oral arguments are set for Sept. 1. A state district judge ruledthat the state isn’t spending enough money to allow the schools to meet the standards it requires of them. The judge also said the state is failing to make sure that kids in one part of the state have a chance to get the same quality of education as kids in other parts.

If the Supremes go along with that reasoning, the Legislature will have to make changes. It could happen quickly if the court wants changes before the start of the 2016-17 school year; the court could also leave this to the Legislature that meets in January 2017, with remedies taking another year.

If you were a politician, you’d be looking at the election cycle that is already well under way. The primaries aren’t until March, but political fundraising has already started and will accelerate after Labor Day. Candidates can file for legislative offices in November. And because it’s a presidential cycle, the campaigning for the top of the ballot has already begun on a television set near you.

Texas lawmakers don’t rewrite the school finance budget formulas — which often involve tax increases and uncomfortable shifts in who gets how much money from the state and who has to raise more money locally  — without orders from the state’s high court. Lowering standards for public schools is just as perilous as increasing taxes. It is easier in both situations to tell voters “the judges made me do it.”

The current case has been a long time coming. This round of school finance litigation started three years ago, when more than half of the state’s public school districts sued, saying the state had made it difficult to cover the costs of operating the schools.

Lawmakers might have headed this off, looking at the complaints and trying to make changes that would have kept the argument out of court. But that’s dangerous, too, and not just because of public resistance to changes in standards and taxes. Getting ahead of the courts is risky.

What if the courts do nothing? What if they don’t do what was expected?

Better to wait. That’s one reason the 84th Legislature came and went without ever taking a vote on school finance changes. In fact, the House’s leader on the issue — state Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock, R-Killeen — proposed a bill to get the conversation going and pulled it downbefore anyone had to vote on it.

He succeeded in getting the conversation going. He protected his colleagues from getting ahead of the courts and doing something unpopular before they could see where, if anywhere, the judges want repairs. The stage is set.

The Supremes might throw it all out and rule that the state is doing everything right. If they don’t, legislators will go another round, possibly in a special session. They will fiddle with state sales and local property taxes, in large and small ways, hoping all the while that voters either don’t notice or blame somebody else.

Right now, they’re praying that all of this will happen, if it happens at all, sometime after next year’s primary elections.

Author: by Ross Ramsey – The Texas Tribune

The Texas Tribune is a nonpartisan, nonprofit media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them – about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.