Fixing school funding requires compromise
Texas once again finds itself in the middle of a debate on the future of public education. With competing budget proposals in the Texas Senate and House, the formation of a Senate committee to develop a new school funding system, and the lieutenant governor’s continued support for vouchers in any school reform plan, the path forward in education looks increasingly unclear. The battle to improve education is as much about competing philosophies as it is about how dollars are spent. The challenge is embracing ideas that we don’t agree with, in the hopes of building a larger solution.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s desire for a voucher system in Texas is no secret. Since first joining the Texas Senate as a member, and now serving as its presiding officer, he has consistently championed a voucher system that seeks to provide broad school choice for students. He is almost as passionate about school choice, as he is in his desire to reduce property taxes.
His counterpart in the House, Speaker Joe Straus, has been very clear that he doesn’t see vouchers as a priority and has instead suggested modest increases to public education funding based on changes to the state’s Robin Hood system that has increasingly placed pressure on more school districts.
Public education advocates and Democrats have advocated for an expansion of pre-K education in Texas and general increases to public education spending. Citing troubling data ranking Texas 38th in per-pupil spending and 43rd in overall educational quality, they have argued for significant investments in public education in Texas while opposing vouchers in any form.
Against this backdrop, the prospects for a compromise seem difficult. Many of the proposals are diametrically opposed, with little common ground.
The answer, however, requires compromise from all sides. Nothing should be sacred and everything has to be on the table.
For progress to happen — it’s time for Texas to think about a grand bargain.
School funding in Texas is inextricably tied to local property taxes. It provides nearly half the resources for public education in Texas. With skyrocketing property taxes driven by automatic appraisal value increases, it is now the single most unpopular tax in Texas at any level — disproportionately hurting homeowners and forcing some to move. Any reform to school funding has to deal with reducing the burden of property taxes on homeowners.
Additionally, any changes to school finance will almost certainly because of politics have to be revenue-neutral; no new resources would be injected into the system. This position is unpopular to some, but it has to be the start point for a realistic bipartisan solution.
Because eliminating all local school property taxes would be nearly impossible, how they are reduced is critical. One of the more equitable options is to exempt the first $200,000 of property value from all residential property. This would in effect eliminate residential property taxes for most middle income homeowners, and reduce some property taxes for all homeowners. This “cut” would be offset by an expansion of the sales tax base to include services and the elimination of loopholes in the business franchise tax. The funds generated through this process should eliminate the need for recapture payments from local districts.
With data consistently pointing to the benefits of quality early education, there is a growing consensus that pre-K for all children would be hugely beneficial in helping improve education. The vast majority of pre-K services currently offered in Texas are by nonprofit or private entities — not public ISDs. A voucher system might make sense in this space — giving parents the choice to send their child to any accredited pre-K center in Texas, whether public, private or nonprofit. To fund these programs, all existing state dollars would be converted to a voucher, and local governments could be given the authority to seek voter approval for additional funds, letting local communities decide if they want to fund additional pre-K services.
Finally, an update to the “weighting system” used to allocate money to the state’s public schools is desperately needed. The school finance formulas are in desperate need of updating, and recognition that students living in poverty need greater resources is needed. A fatal flaw of the current system is its reliance on district property wealth as the arbiter of school funding. It assumes a property-rich district is filled with “wealthy” students. While once true, it is no longer the case. Adjusting the formula weights to allow money to more readily flow to students based upon their economic status rather than which district they reside, has to be an important part of any reform.
Each of these broad policy ideas has deep flaws and shortcomings.
They are merely a start point for a larger discussion on the need for compromise in education policy and funding.
The only way to move forward is to embrace some of the ideas we may find anathema. What is certain, however, is that doing nothing is not an acceptable solution.