Does anyone want to rant about Texas public schools funding crisis?

<p>

</p>

<p>Let’s face it … most discussions about equity in funding in Texas boils down to a tug of war between the have and the have-not. If money would be redirected from Highland Park to Coppell or Southlake, the Park Cities citizens would be upset. When in turn, money was “stolen” from those newly created academic suburban Shangri-La and sent to the Valley, the complaints grew louder. However, even some of the recipients used the new riches to build sport facilities and “splurge” on new perks, there was still not enough to make everyone happy. </p>

<p>The sad reality is that a LOT of money dedicated to K-12 education is wasted. Voters who routinely turn down new bonds are keenly aware of this waste. The other side of the coin is that the taxation of properties reached its natural limit a long time ago. People who are so happy to criticize Rick Perry might have forgotten the measures he pushed to lower the property taxes in Texas. </p>

<p>Of course, this is yet another discussion between the have and have not. Obviously, someone with a 1,000,000 home who sends his children to private schools thinks very differently from a family of renters with three or four kids in the local public schools. Same thing for young families versus retired citizens who own assets that have appreciated.</p>

<p>There are no easy solutions. There are no pools of free money to tap in. Ultimately, people who want more money going to schools have to accept that it will have to come out of their pockets. </p>

<p>Try to sell that idea!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wish we still had the political forum, because I am critizing Perry BECAUSE of his push to lower property taxes. How can anyone support his lowering property taxes and then be upset about the reduction in money to the schools?!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s the thing about the district with the indoor facility in which the Packers practiced. Vacant lots go for $750,000 there. Those folks could easily send their kids to private schools, but they choose to support public. I really don’t have a problem with their spending their own money on a great sports facility that benefits others, rather than spending it on private schools.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I would GLADLY pay higher property taxes to avoid the drastic cuts that our district is going to have to make.</p>

<p>Missypie, I believe that you can freely criticize (in this forum) the positions of Perry when it relates to school funding in Texas.</p>

<p>For the record, and as I hinted, taxpayers in the Park Cities were the loudest critics of the Robin Hood plan. Of course, when their school districts were forced to cut some services in Dallas only to see the poorer districts in South or East Texas use the funds to build olympic-sized swimming pools … they had a legitimate reason to be unhappy. This said, I believe that those lamentations have since died. </p>

<p>Further, I do not think that everyone who lives in Highland Park or University Park would be happy with (or could afford) continuous property tax increases. Indeed one can be mesmerized by the mansions on Beverly, but there are plenty of of 2 bedrooms cottages that house families who could NOT afford to send all their children to St. Marks, Hockaday, ESD, or Greenhill. All in all, it was probably a deliberate choice to live a smaller, pricier home to AVOID having to add 12 to 15 years of private tuition for 1, 2, or 3 children. That is, however, NOT a sign of supporting their public schools. Most people who, as you say, can afford the private tuition without crimping their lifestyles, are gladly driving their children to the tony privates. </p>

<p>Fwiw, this is not dissimilar to the exodus of families that looked at abandoning the Dallas ISD. One generation ago, people who not have imagined the growth of communities such as Southlake, Coppell, or even McKinney and Allen. As it has been said before, many people in the US have the ability of practicing SCHOOL CHOICE by voting with their feet and moving to brand new districts to insulate and isolate themselves from the collapsing urban school districts. Unfortunately, many do not have that choice. Hence the reason for equalizers such as the Robin Hood type of plans. </p>

<p>As far as your willingness to see higher taxes, I believe that you should contact your politicans and ask them to explore to raise the property taxes on families who benefit for this archaic system of taxation … and lower the taxes on people who are victimized. It would not even represent an adminstrative hurdle. All that would be needed is to remove the homeowner’s exemption to any family who has one child in a local public school. People who pay for private schools should keep their exemption, and people who have no children attending a school should get a bonus representing one-half of the money raised by removing the exemption. Schools should thus keep 50% of the bonus money. </p>

<p>Could such a law pass? Not in a hundred years! People are fed up with paying property taxes in the 3 to 4 percent rate per annum, with the bulk of it going to schools. People are fed up because the schools are unable to manage their budgets properly as they waste money on management, supervision, and plenty of perks for the uber-protected. If families were given a fixed budget per child, things would be different. A family with two kids could have a 20,000 “allowance” and decide if they actually ant to “top” that up with an increase. Now, that money is an abstract concept as taxpayers do not understand where it goes and how much the K-12 education of their children really cost them … and how much is subsidized by plenty of others. Little wonder why many families are shocked when they see the college COA for the first time. </p>

<p>You really must be in a minority who would welcome paying more taxes to help such a sinking ship maintain its course to nowhere.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I like our school district and the way they do things, so yes, I’m willing to pay for it.</p>

<p>xiggi, when you talk about “rich” districts, you do realize that includes ISDs such as Austin, which is almost two-thirds free and reduced lunch and 30% with limited English proficiency?</p>

<p>Missypie, how many years of schooling did your children spent in that district? How much did you pay in taxes over the same years? If the difference is positive, it helps support an increase in taxes. </p>

<p>Will you feel the same five years after your last child graduated? How do your childless neighbors feel about raises in property taxes? </p>

<p>Please rest assured that I DO understand your position, and that it is not one you need to defend. Actually, I do applaud that you would be willing to pay more for the same services. </p>

<p>After all, none of us created this system, and it is what it is. In a few years, I will be facing all the same issues and I will look for what makes the most sense for my family. I now can see how different it would be to live in Northern California or North Texas. </p>

<p>My biggest fear is that it will be painful, no matter what.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, and it should make one shudder when thinking about what the poor districts must face.</p>

<p>And, fwiw, it is amazing to read how divided the comments are on this recent article. It shows how complex this issue truly is.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/education/entries/2011/02/11/school_administrators_to_recom.html[/url]”>http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/education/entries/2011/02/11/school_administrators_to_recom.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>That is what is so wild about Robin Hood.</p>

<p>I also think that Robin Hood and the 2006 ban on raising the tax rate is moving toward Socialism, which is pretty funny to me given the very conservative makeup of our legislature!</p>

<p>The really poor districts don’t have the cost of living that some of the “rich” places do.</p>

<p>missy, yes. Talk about redistribution of wealth.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If the redistribution of wealth is such a bad idea in Texas, what would a better alternative be? Wealthy people are not happy. Poor people are not happy.</p>

<p>If the richer districts are allowed to keep all their revenues, what is the solution for the current beneficiaries? Do we expect to do more with less?</p>

<p>According to a study, the poorer districts have a higher property tax rate: " The poorest school districts (10 percent) average a school property tax rate of $1.14 and get $5,530 per student while the wealthiest school districts (10 percent) average a $1.01 tax rate and get $8,316 per student."</p>

<p>The difference in funding translates directly in a worse education:</p>

<p>[Poorest</a> school districts get least-qualified teachers; affluent districts get the best, survey f…](<a href=“http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/10/18/2556603/poorest-school-districts-get-least.html]Poorest”>http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/10/18/2556603/poorest-school-districts-get-least.html)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>My comment was only to the comical nature of right wing politicians engaging in redistribution of wealth.</p>

<p>I’m not saying it’s a horrible system, but I think the idea of what is a “rich” district should be re-evaluated.</p>

<p>New York is exactly the same.</p>