Irish 2.0 said:

---

Old May Banker said:

---

Should children and parents in better performing rural districts be forced to accept them?

---

Different matter. But to completely eliminate the parents' ability to try an alternative is the issue.

I'm from Gonzales, TX and went to Catholic School in Shiner. I was very fortunate that my parents sacrificed to make that happen for me. Because otherwise I would have been stuck in a very below average ISD. Why are you opposed to people using THEIR educational tax dollars for an alternative source of education when the one they're currently forced to stay in continually fails the kids?

---

A St. Paul grad?

Agreed

Had dinner with my state rep tonight and visited for a couple hours... a few thoughts he shared

- the ledge on both sides are eyeing that huge surplus and spending money like drunken sailors

- the voucher amendment that failed would have cost the taxpayers $19,000 per student that chose to take the voucher and swap public schools - $8k for the voucher and still an additional $11k to the school they attended.

- many in the ledge are viewing the vouchers as "tax reform" and not interested in fixing the real problems with property tax but acting like the vouchers will give them cover

- the surplus was divided in half to cover two years of vouchers... with the thought being they could continue to have huge surpluses to cover it moving forward - those surpluses of course coming on the backs of taxpayers who they intend to placate with vouchers.

- there are open enrollment districts all over the state that are completely ignored.

- small communities that choose not to invest in infrastructure will soon find most of their students headed to better facilities regardless of academics - widening the gap even more between the haves / have nots and potentially decimating those towns, where the ISD is generally the largest employer.

- he absolutely supports the right of special needs to be able to attend wherever they are best accommodated... but this bill addressed that in the most fiscally irresponsible way possible.

- why should a kid at a good school be worth $11k in taxes from the state while a kid at a poor performing school be worth $19k

- he's all for choice, but not many take advantage of it now unless it's for athletics.

- the surplus belongs to the tax payers, not the Texas ledge. Some in the ledge are using those purse strings to keep the money in Austin and not deal with tax reform.

- the bill that was voted down had zero oversight or accountability back to the taxpayers that paid in that surplus. It was ripe for fraud....

Those were obviously his opinions based on reading the amendment. He raised a number of issues that I was not aware of. He also believes they'll have special session to and try to eventually pass something so they can completely control that surplus while not addressing property tax reform other than claiming, "we gave you school choice"

murphyag said:

---

Bird Poo said:

---

murphyag said:

---

LSCSN said:

---

both BCS reps voted no. and i know at least one of them sent their kid to private school. funny stuff.

---

I send one of my kids private school and pay over $30,000 a year to do so. My other kid is in our local public school. That is my personal choice as a parent. I don't believe in school vouchers.

---

So you get your personal choice because you can afford 30,000/year?

I believe in vouchers because it increases opportunity for everyone. Not just those who can afford private school. It also forces schools to compete for good teachers while increasing their pay.

---

The small amount of voucher money that Texas would give out isn't enough for middle class, lower middle class, and the working poor to be able to attend good private schools that provide an equal or better education than public schools. But, it would cause a bunch of crappy for profit private schools to open up with unqualified staff and lackluster curriculums to take advantage of naive parents. I don't like to see unsuspecting people getting taken advantage of and I guarantee you this would happen with vouchers.

ETA- If the good public school teachers wanted to work in private schools they would already be doing so. And I guarantee you that the last thing vouchers will accomplish is increasing teacher pay.

---

You obviously know nothing of private schools and the services they provide. They do a great job educating, and many do it at a fraction of the cost of government schools, which have simply become indoctrination centers. Government shouldn't have a monopoly on education.

Government doesn't have a monopoly on education. You have school choice now.

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

murphyag said:

---

Bird Poo said:

---

murphyag said:

---

LSCSN said:

---

both BCS reps voted no. and i know at least one of them sent their kid to private school. funny stuff.

---

I send one of my kids private school and pay over $30,000 a year to do so. My other kid is in our local public school. That is my personal choice as a parent. I don't believe in school vouchers.

---

So you get your personal choice because you can afford 30,000/year?

I believe in vouchers because it increases opportunity for everyone. Not just those who can afford private school. It also forces schools to compete for good teachers while increasing their pay.

---

The small amount of voucher money that Texas would give out isn't enough for middle class, lower middle class, and the working poor to be able to attend good private schools that provide an equal or better education than public schools. But, it would cause a bunch of crappy for profit private schools to open up with unqualified staff and lackluster curriculums to take advantage of naive parents. I don't like to see unsuspecting people getting taken advantage of and I guarantee you this would happen with vouchers.

ETA- If the good public school teachers wanted to work in private schools they would already be doing so. And I guarantee you that the last thing vouchers will accomplish is increasing teacher pay.

---

You obviously know nothing of private schools and the services they provide. They do a great job educating, and many do it at a fraction of the cost of government schools, which have simply become indoctrination centers. Government shouldn't have a monopoly on education.

---

.

Good response, I also like how murphyag is going to save all those poor naive parents from being taken advantage of. Get over yourself dude. If the private school stinks then people are not going to send their kids there. They will keep them in that amazing public school. People are rational, let them have a choice.

Where is this happening? Is it systemic? I've been in dozens of classrooms over the last month and haven't seen this liberal indoctrination that keeps being referenced.

If the problem is somehow whatever that means, then fix the problem.

I'd argue that private schools (many religious) probably more accurately indoctrinate students than public. It's just do you agree with or disagree with their indoctrination perspectives.

There are a lot of bogeyman stories out there that somehow happen states away in one classroom or one district or with one teacher but make headlines on national news and people believe it's happening in their neighborhood elementary.

oldag941 said:

---

Where is this happening? Is it systemic? I've been in dozens of classrooms over the last month and haven't seen this liberal indoctrination that keeps being referenced.

If the problem is somehow whatever that means, then fix the problem.

I'd argue that private schools (many religious) probably more accurately indoctrinate students than public. It's just do you agree with or disagree with their indoctrination perspectives.

There are a lot of bogeyman stories out there that somehow happen states away in one classroom or one district or with one teacher but make headlines on national news and people believe it's happening in their neighborhood elementary.

---

I can't help you if you don't see the indoctrination, but one example is that you can find sexually explicit books in the school libraries across the state. Rural school districts have them, and many 'good' schools like McKinney and Frisco have them. Say what you want about private school indoctrination, but parents are allowed to choose what private schools their child attends and have control over what they're taught. Government schools just shove anything down your child's throat and you have no say over it.

oldag941 said:

---

Government doesn't have a monopoly on education. You have school choice now.

---

By the government's definition of monopoly, government schools easily meet the definition. They are the dominant position in education, and their choices affect the education of all students in school. They are completely paid for by taxpayers, putting them in a highly advantaged situation compared to other forms of education, and you have no choice but to pay taxes to support them no matter how poorly managed or corrupt they are. At this point, they're a complete drain on society and are destroying the country.

Yes, by that definition it's a monopoly. And so is defense. Both constitutionally mandated. Texas constitution and federal of course. Americans chose for common benefits, like education, be paid for by everyone. Because everyone directly or indirectly benefits by an educated populace.

If the system is breaking, then fix the system. How will this "solution" fix the "problem"?

If it's books in the library, then fix the books in the library.

At the end of the day, we have a societal problem. Values are sliding and mechanically accelerated by our legal system. Litigation.

A backdoor dilution of the public Ed system won't fix that problem and will result in larger problems for entire communities left with even worse neighborhood schools and districts.

And I'm not sure the student outcomes sought will actually be realized based on that dilution.

Sorry, nothing personal. I just wish someone would walk me through how this is all projected to work, including positive and negative impacts on students and communities.

Maybe we need to change the constitution.

Rapier108 said:

---

John Raney is a total POS, always has been. I despised him for years and am to the point I'd vote for the Democrat just to be rid of him.

Why Brazos County can't get someone better is beyond me, except for the fact he has total control over the good ole boys network.

Kyle Kacal is a liberal pretending to be a conservative. The Democrats can always count on his vote when they need him.

---

Or maybe you are the outlier. They keep fending of primary challenges.

Just so I could give that post a second blue star...

Maybe Texas can end the requirement for education. Close the schools. Every child and family for themselves. Auction off the school building and the property. Free market.

/s

Elitist like their clubs to stay exclusionary.

oldag941 said:

---

Yes, by that definition it's a monopoly. And so is defense. Both constitutionally mandated. Texas constitution and federal of course. Americans chose for common benefits, like education, be paid for by everyone. Because everyone directly or indirectly benefits by an educated populace.

If the system is breaking, then fix the system. How will this "solution" fix the "problem"?

If it's books in the library, then fix the books in the library.

At the end of the day, we have a societal problem. Values are sliding and mechanically accelerated by our legal system. Litigation.

A backdoor dilution of the public Ed system won't fix that problem and will result in larger problems for entire communities left with even worse neighborhood schools and districts.

And I'm not sure the student outcomes sought will actually be realized based on that dilution.

Sorry, nothing personal. I just wish someone would walk me through how this is all projected to work, including positive and negative impacts on students and communities.

Maybe we need to change the constitution.

---

I actually agree with a lot of that. Me concern with vouchers is that they would come with strings attached. How do you have 'accountability' to the state without having some recognized curriculum or criteria? We may have the most free state in the country when it comes to education. How will vouchers impact that if it requires 'accountability'? The Tebow bill even changed the rules for homeschoolers to join non-UIL organizations like 4-H. My wife and I homeschool and don't recognize the state's authority or expertise in our children's education. I look at property taxes as the extortion money I pay the education mob to stay out of our business.

As for government education, it's beyond reform. It would be best to change the Constitution to eliminate the educational mandate. There's no education, only indoctrination, and the cost per student is astronomical. Dismantling big education would be the best thing this state could do.

On cue, The poster above just proposed ending public education.

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Quote:

---

They could also be assuming it will negatively affect their country school funding, when in reality it won't...but they still bend the ear of their reps.

---

Let's discuss this point. What are the consequences to "Rural" Texas?

---

NBC has an excellent piece on the rural school district of Robert Lee, Texas.

The money quote in the piece is this:

Quote:

---

On his private Christian school road tour, Abbott has pitched school choice as a way of empowering parents to protect their children from a "woke agenda" he says is being pushed by some public school educators.

Such allegations sound fanciful to many in Robert Lee, where both the town and the school district are unapologetically named in honor of the famous Confederate general's military service in Texas prior to the Civil War.

The biggest political controversy Hood has dealt with in recent years has been over the strictness of the dress code. "When you've got all of your students ages 5 through 18 in one building," he said, "you sort of have to be conservative."

Source: NBC News

---

On the other hand, the woke agenda IS coming to rural Texas. Llano County recently faced having to shutter one of its libraries in lieu of a court order that the library keep controversial (READ: Leftist agenda) books on its shelves. Llano!

What really is happening is that the trans agenda, critical race theory the anti-racist dogma are about to kill rural school districts with edicts handed down by what is sure to come a leftist Texas Legislature as the Texas metros continue to get more woke and stuff ballot boxes for communists. Once TASB and the TEA start jamming woke horse manure down the school board in Wall, Christoval, Robert Lee, Sterling City, or even Brenham, we are going to see the destruction of rural Texas.

Why? These rural school districts really are the institutions that define and nurture rural communities. Why is 6-man football so popular? Because of rural schools. Take away those Friday nights and we're going to have a whole new Texas that's woke and authoritarian. And there will be no refuge.

The Republican legislation failed to completely account for rural school district preservation.

shiftyandquick said:

---

On cue, The poster above just proposed ending public education.

---

Well, when it's not 'public' or 'education', there's not much point in keeping it, is there?

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Yes, by that definition it's a monopoly. And so is defense. Both constitutionally mandated. Texas constitution and federal of course. Americans chose for common benefits, like education, be paid for by everyone. Because everyone directly or indirectly benefits by an educated populace.

If the system is breaking, then fix the system. How will this "solution" fix the "problem"?

If it's books in the library, then fix the books in the library.

At the end of the day, we have a societal problem. Values are sliding and mechanically accelerated by our legal system. Litigation.

A backdoor dilution of the public Ed system won't fix that problem and will result in larger problems for entire communities left with even worse neighborhood schools and districts.

And I'm not sure the student outcomes sought will actually be realized based on that dilution.

Sorry, nothing personal. I just wish someone would walk me through how this is all projected to work, including positive and negative impacts on students and communities.

Maybe we need to change the constitution.

---

I actually agree with a lot of that. Me concern with vouchers is that they would come with strings attached. How do you have 'accountability' to the state without having some recognized curriculum or criteria? We may have the most free state in the country when it comes to education. How will vouchers impact that if it requires 'accountability'? The Tebow bill even changed the rules for homeschoolers to join non-UIL organizations like 4-H. My wife and I homeschool and don't recognize the state's authority or expertise in our children's education. I look at property taxes as the extortion money I pay the education mob to stay out of our business.

As for government education, it's beyond reform. It would be best to change the Constitution to eliminate the educational mandate. There's no education, only indoctrination, and the cost per student is astronomical. Dismantling big education would be the best thing this state could do.

---

I don't know about changing the constitution, but I will say this:

The "Tim Tebow" bill (HB547) made it so kids living in a public school district could be allowed to participate in that public school's extra curricular activities INCLUDING UIL activities if they are enrolled in a school other than another public school. For two years now every school I have asked has adopted a policy to disallow this. I'd be curious if anyone is aware of any schools that are allowing it.
The answer excuse is usually about money (that kid won't add to their WADA and therefore won't bring them more state income). Yet, the schools conveniently overlook the thousands of dollars you already pay them directly in property taxes.
So while you homeschool your kids, likely better educating them, and you pay taxes to the school (M&O + I&S-paying for bonds), they can, but won't allow you kids to benefit from their faculty, facilities or teams.
Public schools (and government in general) often forget who they serve.

So, at the very least, it would be justifiable, IMO, for you to take your tax dollars and use them where your can benefit. We are now at a point where it's almost taxation without representation.

I can think of no better way to reform the education system than to allow parents to take their school taxes and use them toward a better education. When schools start losing your tax dollars, and the state funding for the reduction in WADA, they will have to be better to survive.
In the meantime, responsible and caring parents should re-evaluate their priorities. Imagine the cultural improvement if families committed to homeschooling their kids with a very good curriculum. As more and more do, schools at least will lose the state funding and it will start to hurt them.
The constitution is fine. We already have the power to effect change. It's just a matter of it being important enough to our society.

ETA:
If HB547 required schools to allow this extra curricular participation, I think it would have end the school choice debate, or at least any chance of it ever coming to be.

Framing this as only a benefit to the single family homeowner / taxpayer who has a school-aged kid, doesn't seem to take the whole discussion into account.

I would bet in the state of Texas, that if not the majority, a large minority of families with school-aged students do not pay property taxes. Based on their economic status. At least not directly.

A lot of the burden is carried by commercial and industrial property owners. From an economic development, and educated labor pool perspective, they do benefit as well. I remember Boeing staying one of the reasons they did not ultimately choose to base in Dallas was their concern with the pub Ed system and them having to eventually have to "import" qualified labor.

What about the empty-nesters and senior citizens that pay property taxes, but don't have the direct benefit of a student in school? They benefit through their home value, neighborhood desirability, lower crime etc. a lot of that tied back to a successful and desirable neighborhood school.

Just throwing these out as further considerations since I rarely hear them discussed.

Pain is a motivator for sure. Not sure causing "pain" to your local school will get your desired improved outcome. If that's your intent? It sure won't recruit or retain the quality teacher in the classroom that those desired outcomes directly rely on.

I am also not so sure how many parents have the time or means to homeschool. I know a few but they are in uniquely flexible situations to allow that. Two-working parent families seems the norm these days to even have a "middle class" suburban life. I know of no friends that would choose homeschooling over public Ed (or over improving public Ed). Maybe as a forcing function after public Ed has been "pained". Sorry. Maybe I run in different circles.

When schools lose their tax dollars they will only continue to rot faster. Then it'll cost more to revitalize. It's like the city vs. suburb. City loses tax dollars to the suburb and the city turns into a huge ghetto.

oldag941 said:

---

I am also not so sure how many parents have the time or means to homeschool. I know a few but they are in uniquely flexible situations to allow that. Two-working parent families seems the norm these days to even have a "middle class" suburban life. I know of no friends that would choose homeschooling over public Ed (or over improving public Ed). Maybe as a forcing function after public Ed has been "pained". Sorry. Maybe I run in different circles.

---

No, you and I are probably in similar circleS. This is my point on that topic: our society places more priority on homes, material goods, financial success, etc. this is the cultural change I suggest it would take.

I agree with that perspective. I'm just not convinced that the current "plan" for vouchers will get us there for that it will cause less harm in the process.

Catag94 said:

---

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Yes, by that definition it's a monopoly. And so is defense. Both constitutionally mandated. Texas constitution and federal of course. Americans chose for common benefits, like education, be paid for by everyone. Because everyone directly or indirectly benefits by an educated populace.

If the system is breaking, then fix the system. How will this "solution" fix the "problem"?

If it's books in the library, then fix the books in the library.

At the end of the day, we have a societal problem. Values are sliding and mechanically accelerated by our legal system. Litigation.

A backdoor dilution of the public Ed system won't fix that problem and will result in larger problems for entire communities left with even worse neighborhood schools and districts.

And I'm not sure the student outcomes sought will actually be realized based on that dilution.

Sorry, nothing personal. I just wish someone would walk me through how this is all projected to work, including positive and negative impacts on students and communities.

Maybe we need to change the constitution.

---

I actually agree with a lot of that. Me concern with vouchers is that they would come with strings attached. How do you have 'accountability' to the state without having some recognized curriculum or criteria? We may have the most free state in the country when it comes to education. How will vouchers impact that if it requires 'accountability'? The Tebow bill even changed the rules for homeschoolers to join non-UIL organizations like 4-H. My wife and I homeschool and don't recognize the state's authority or expertise in our children's education. I look at property taxes as the extortion money I pay the education mob to stay out of our business.

As for government education, it's beyond reform. It would be best to change the Constitution to eliminate the educational mandate. There's no education, only indoctrination, and the cost per student is astronomical. Dismantling big education would be the best thing this state could do.

---

I don't know about changing the constitution, but I will say this:

The "Tim Tebow" bill (HB547) made it so kids living in a public school district could be allowed to participate in that public school's extra curricular activities INCLUDING UIL activities if they are enrolled in a school other than another public school. For two years now every school I have asked has adopted a policy to disallow this. I'd be curious if anyone is aware of any schools that are allowing it.
The answer excuse is usually about money (that kid won't add to their WADA and therefore won't bring them more state income). Yet, the schools conveniently overlook the thousands of dollars you already pay them directly in property taxes.
So while you homeschool your kids, likely better educating them, and you pay taxes to the school (M&O + I&S-paying for bonds), they can, but won't allow you kids to benefit from their faculty, facilities or teams.
Public schools (and government in general) often forget who they serve.

So, at the very least, it would be justifiable, IMO, for you to take your tax dollars and use them where your can benefit. We are now at a point where it's almost taxation without representation.

I can think of no better way to reform the education system than to allow parents to take their school taxes and use them toward a better education. When schools start losing your tax dollars, and the state funding for the reduction in WADA, they will have to be better to survive.
In the meantime, responsible and caring parents should re-evaluate their priorities. Imagine the cultural improvement if families committed to homeschooling their kids with a very good curriculum. As more and more do, schools at least will lose the state funding and it will start to hurt them.
The constitution is fine. We already have the power to effect change. It's just a matter of it being important enough to our society.

ETA:
If HB547 required schools to allow this extra curricular participation, I think it would have end the school choice debate, or at least any chance of it ever coming to be.

---

How is it taxation without representation when you elect your school board members as well as your state rep and senator?

You may not like how they're handling their budget but you've got multiple layers of representation for whom you vote that have a direct say in how your property and sales tax dollars are utilized. Just because your beliefs or those of your representative were on the losing side during some of the appropriations doesn't mean you weren't represented.

You missed my point. First I don't say it is taxation without representation, I said it is nearing that point. I meant this specifically about property taxes that go directly to the school. For homeschooled or private schooled kids, that public school can now, thanks to HB547, allow those kids to participate in extracurricular activities. However, they refuse to do it. As an example, the school wants a new football field, and it comes to the boring public for a bind election. That passed bond imposes an increased tax on the family whose kids go to homeschool or private school. If their kids want to play football for the public school, the law now allows this, but the very school asking them to pay their share for the football field refuses to allow the kids to participate. Does this help?

Catag94 said:

---

You missed my point. First I don't say it is taxation without representation, I said it is nearing that point. I meant this specifically about property taxes that go directly to the school. For homeschooled or private schooled kids, that public school can now, thanks to HB547, allow those kids to participate in extracurricular activities. However, they refuse to do it. As an example, the school wants a new football field, and it comes to the boring public for a bind election. That passed bond imposes an increased tax on the family whose kids go to homeschool or private school. If their kids want to play football for the public school, the law now allows this, but the very school asking them to pay their share for the football field refuses to allow the kids to participate. Does this help?

---

Nope, not at all. The law that your rep and senator voted into place (the rep and senator that you voted for/against) allows for school districts to vote on whether they'll allow the homeschool kid to participate or not (localized control). Then the school board members (that you voted for/against) voted to not allow the kids to play. In addition to that, you had a say in the bond election that built the football field. More of your neighbors than not voted for it.

So it sounds like you lost on at least three votes in that process but it doesn't mean you weren't represented.

Catag94 said:

---

You missed my point. First I don't say it is taxation without representation, I said it is nearing that point. I meant this specifically about property taxes that go directly to the school. For homeschooled or private schooled kids, that public school can now, thanks to HB547, allow those kids to participate in extracurricular activities. However, they refuse to do it. As an example, the school wants a new football field, and it comes to the boring public for a bind election. That passed bond imposes an increased tax on the family whose kids go to homeschool or private school. If their kids want to play football for the public school, the law now allows this, but the very school asking them to pay their share for the football field refuses to allow the kids to participate. Does this help?

---

BTW property taxes go to the state that then decides how much an ISD will get back. The Rs in Austin have consistently eroded away most local control.

DallasAg03 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

You missed my point. First I don't say it is taxation without representation, I said it is nearing that point. I meant this specifically about property taxes that go directly to the school. For homeschooled or private schooled kids, that public school can now, thanks to HB547, allow those kids to participate in extracurricular activities. However, they refuse to do it. As an example, the school wants a new football field, and it comes to the boring public for a bind election. That passed bond imposes an increased tax on the family whose kids go to homeschool or private school. If their kids want to play football for the public school, the law now allows this, but the very school asking them to pay their share for the football field refuses to allow the kids to participate. Does this help?

---

BTW property taxes go to the state that then decides how much an ISD will get back. The Rs in Austin have consistently eroded away most local control.

---

No they don't. They go from the county tax assessor (that collects them) to the school district. Money coming from the state to the school districts is out of the state revenue streams (sales tax, gas tax, oil production, etc).

Wrong

Stive said:

---

DallasAg03 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

You missed my point. First I don't say it is taxation without representation, I said it is nearing that point. I meant this specifically about property taxes that go directly to the school. For homeschooled or private schooled kids, that public school can now, thanks to HB547, allow those kids to participate in extracurricular activities. However, they refuse to do it. As an example, the school wants a new football field, and it comes to the boring public for a bind election. That passed bond imposes an increased tax on the family whose kids go to homeschool or private school. If their kids want to play football for the public school, the law now allows this, but the very school asking them to pay their share for the football field refuses to allow the kids to participate. Does this help?

---

BTW property taxes go to the state that then decides how much an ISD will get back. The Rs in Austin have consistently eroded away most local control.

---

No they don't. They go from the county tax assessor (that collects them) to the school district. Money coming from the state to the school districts is out of the state revenue streams (sales tax, gas tax, oil production, etc).

---

So you are saying wealthy school districts keep all their locally collected tax money?

Some of them have to send some to the state and that gets redistributed to poorer districts. But, it didn't go to the state first.

Catag94 said:

---

Some of them have to send some to the state and that gets redistributed to poorer districts. But, it didn't go to the state first.

---

OK, I'll change my statement: ISD gets the tax money, THEN the state uses a formula to determine how much they get to keep. Either way it's being controlled in Austin and not locally.

Y'all are are arguing over semantics.... which is exactly what the state government wants. Meanwhile, they continue to over tax us while waving things like "school choice" in front of voters as a form of lube for what they're planning to do later. It's apparently working on no small number of folks judging from many of the replies.