If we can spend big on primaries, we should do same for education
Just a couple of things to ponder after the Texas primaries proved again that wellfunded candidates win — and win by big margins.
If money plays a role to boost a candidate’s chance to win, why wouldn’t money play a role to provide a better education system?
We have been told repeatedly that there is enough — even too much — money in public education, and we just need to be more efficient. I propose public education has become so efficient, it cannot meet the needs of children.
Texas Education Agency Commissioner Mike Morath has said, “Teachers are the most important in-school factor impacting student outcomes.” Most would agree with him, but to entice quality teachers to pursue and stay in the teaching field, isn’t money a factor? If a school district cannot afford to pay competitive salaries, teachers leave. School districts compete with one another, so a district will always pay what it can to attract and maintain its staff. The notion that there is money lying around or that money can be diverted from one program to pay teachers more is just not reality. Money is a factor.
Growing school districts must provide a building, desk, books, and technology to all students. Our public education system does not provide funding to build school buildings; a district must hold local elections and sell bonds to meet the needs of the students. Since the local constituency participates in the structure of the bonds by approving the kind of facilities and extracurricular programs the taxpayers expect, it truly becomes government at the most efficient and representative level.
The school board is responding to the demands of its voting public. Yet, time and again, politicians with the most money and bully pulpits claim that money spent on school facilities and supported by debt is being wasted and that this money should go to teachers. Our politicians know and understand there are two different pots of money: locally approved debt used solely for facilities, and maintenance and operations funds that are a combination of local tax revenues and state funding that is used for paying teacher salaries. That is not the message that is being sent to the public. Those with money control the message.
Educating children living in poverty costs more money. Research shows that the children of families living in poverty are at higher risk for poor educational outcomes, including lower achievement scores, repeating grades and dropping out of school. Early education programs, proven to help these children bridge the achievement gap, cost money. Intensive intervention for older students and developing school-community partnerships also cost money. More than 15 percent of Texas families are living in poverty, though Texas is spending less than half per pupil than other states — which have less robust economies than ours — to educate our children.
It costs money to win an election, and it costs money to provide an equitable, quality education for all Texas children.
On Monday, the Public School Finance Commission will be accepting public comments on the future of our public education system.
It is simply not true that money doesn’t matter. Clearly, it mattered in the Texas primaries. One can only wonder how the millions of dollars spent to elect politicians to a job that pays very little could have been better spent on educating the students of Texas.
Thank you to everyone who voted — and for all the candidates who ran on a platform of a better education system. We should all be grateful to these individuals for the time and energy they put into campaigning for all of us. We must continue the fight to have the 5.3 million school children’s voices heard. Please continue to give thoughtful input to those on the Public School Finance Commission, and those who will be representing us in public office.