DallasAg03 said:

---

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?

---

This question has zero to do with your earlier statement; Catag is right.

You're not wrong in your earlier statement when you said local control is getting eroded. That's been happening for a while and is a very bipartisan issue. Some of the biggest hypocrites in Austin are the Jack-hole republicans that crow about wanting smaller government but centralize more and more of the local issues to the state capital. In a small group discussion a few years ago, I heard our local rep (who most would consider to be far right wing on almost every subject) say "if you'll just get us more power we'll fix some of these problems you're facing." Just wow….

Recapture "leaders".

DallasAg03 said:

---

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.

---

Vastly oversimplified. A huge percentage of districts' local revenues are insufficient and never are subject to recapture.

It is estimated that in 2020, our Texas Republicans, took 1.9 billion dollars in locally collected property taxes and distributed it to other school districts.

The recapture theory and intent was to collect from property rich districts and redistribute to property poor districts. That does not happen. The state collects and it goes to the general fund.

oldag941 said:

---

The recapture theory and intent was to collect from property rich districts and redistribute to property poor districts. That does not happen. The state collects and it goes to the general fund.

---

Doesn't sound very conservative to me. Surely this isn't happening in Texas?

158 districts were subject to recapture in 21-22. That's like 15%.

oldag941 said:

---

The recapture theory and intent was to collect from property rich districts and redistribute to property poor districts. That does not happen. The state collects and it goes to the general fund.

---

Yep... where it sits with billions of other surplus dollars. And, in lieu of giving back or reducing tax burdens they come up with nifty plans to keep it so the constituents can feel like they gained some "individual freedom" because they can never get past their emotional cry of "choice" to realize what's really happening.

The 85% is Texas school districts that can't meet their budget with local property taxes definitely receive state funding.

Catag94 said:

---

The 85% is Texas school districts that can't meet their budget with local property taxes definitely receive state funding.

---

78% of schools have less than 3,000 students. None of this math really matters when you realize that the 15% of ISDs represent huge population centers. The state is taking between 1.9 billion - 3 billion a year away from local control. If they want to impose a state tax (sales, property or income) they should at least be honest about and stop shifting the blame.

They've now spent two sessions on transgender crap distracting everyone.

One of them was Texline ISD.

ETA:
The math works better thank you are giving it credit in that school property taxes are intended to fund education. A school's entitlement is calculated based on its average daily attendance. So, for those schools paying a recapture, their property values exceed what they need or are entitled to and their population of students is already accounted for. The vast majority of districts have the opposite problem.

Yes. Average daily attendance. The challenge is the state tells you how much it costs to educate a student. There are some small increases for variables like special Ed etc. the pool of students is becoming more difficult to educate and therefore more expensive. Our population of economic disadvantaged, English language learners and refugees had skyrocketed. But the basic allotment hasn't kept up with that.

I hate to say inflation but it has become a real challenge as well. After Uvalde, our district insurance went up a million dollars. I guess it's understandable but sure wasn't in the budget. Average age of district buildings is 57 years (hence expenses are increasing to keep them updated and just functional).

So yea, the state has a flat rate they say it costs to educate a kid. But that needs to increase based on reality of conditions and the market.

There is a whole lot of twisting and obfuscation going on in this thread. Confusion about what monopolies are and trying to make local government control mean the same as individual freedom, not to mention ignoring how much control the state and the feds have over public schools.

That's a whole lot of hand waving and distracting trying to hide foundational truths.

Individuals are better managers of money spent than then government.

Vouchers would create competition for those dollars and competition would result in both better outcomes and more efficient spending.

How many families will choose an alternative based on $6,000 per kid? I don't know. More than some here think. Probably less than I think. But, what I do know is it doesn't have to be a huge number to affect change. As entrepreneurs innovative new systems and demonstrate success, other systems will have to adapt or continue to lose headcount.

I appreciate your attempt at simplification. It's definitely a perspective with value. Unfortunately these are complex issues. I'm all for competition and fully believe in it. But true competition and it's benefits are only realized when the competitors have the same rules. Holding public systems accountable to TEA testing (STAAR, graduation rate ratings etc) and requirements while not holding private / homeschool / charter to the same? Requiring public schools to resource every special Ed, English learner, refugee that shows up at the door but not private, home or charter required to do so? While resourcing each with our well-earned tax dollars. Doesn't sound like competition. Sports teams and businesses compete and benefit from it. But they play by the same rules.

Again, I appreciate the simplification but it has to be distilled a little more to reach where you are headed.

Im Gipper said:

---

Old May Banker said:

---

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

---

Can you show us in the proposed law where it says better performing rural districts are forced to accept them?

---

Even if they were the rural district would have to be within driving distance

you sound like someone that sits on a schoolboard or is in education, which I like.

This is the exact issue above - level playing field isn't there...

However, there will be people on this board that say "well, we should be turning away non-english speakers, or xyz person that doesn't pay taxes..."

then you end up with refugee ghettos that take over entire cities (see much of western europe in just the last decade). You HAVE to attempt to educate the population, at whatever cost.

I'm not a fan of a foreign entity coming in and profiting off our tax dollars, either.

I would also be worried as a homeowner in a "good district" where bad students will want to be placed... then the district goes to hell and property values drop because they're busing in kids from bad areas.

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.

---

Lol! I've been a private school parent since my oldest started Kindergarten. So, I've been in the private school world for over 13 years. The oldest ended up wanting to attend our local public school once we moved to our current home. My youngest still attends a private school in Dallas. His tuition is over $30k a year. I am a member of the board of his school. But, I don't know anything about private schools....

Quote:

---

Doesn't sound like competition. Sports teams and businesses compete and benefit from it. But they play by the same rules.

---

Of course they aren't going to have the exact same rules. FedEx and the USPS don't have the same rules, but they still compete for some of the same customers. Different states don't have the same rules and they compete to attract business to locate there. College football and the NFL don't have the same rules, but they compete for eyeballs and attendance. Housing and apartments. Solar and traditional electricity. On and on.

In some cases, maybe the competition will help some of the bad rules get dropped or modified.

In other cases, keep in mind the rules still heavily favor public schools who still get more money and have funding mechanisms and other assets not available to other alternatives.

If we are serious about educating kids, we need a flourishing array of options and innovations. Not a one size fits all approach.

Finally - let's be clear on something regarding the special needs kids. On the whole, the public schools are not doing a bang up job with them. Look at the massive number of people who fight IEP battles trying to advocate for the kids. Many private institutions are willing to fill that gap and a lot of states already have successful voucher programs in place for special needs kids.

murphyag said:

---

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.

---

Lol! I've been a private school parent since my oldest started Kindergarten. So, I've been in the private school world for over 13 years. The oldest ended up wanting to attend our local public school once we moved to our current home. My youngest still attends a private school in Dallas. His tuition is over $30k a year. I am a member of the board of his school. But, I don't know anything about private schools....

---

There currently isnt a big market for "middle income" private schools. If you add money you can see a market rise up.

I bet private schools could offer better parent protection for teachers, freedom to teach (not test driven) and better hour if the school is innovative. Or you can keep status quo which is trending toward catastrophe. Basically the only possible outcome is positive because the current outcome is terrible.

this will turn into another welfare con where people will take $6k and do absolutely jack **** for education if you don't put them on the same playing field.

Just like women having kids to WIC money.

ChoppinDs40 said:

---

this will turn into another welfare con where people will take $6k and do absolutely jack **** for education if you don't put them on the same playing field.

---

What do you think is happening in many public schools right now?

call public education what you want but it's not someone collecting a $6k check for homeschooling children that's state funded.

ChoppinDs40 said:

---

this will turn into another welfare con where people will take $6k and do absolutely jack **** for education if you don't put them on the same playing field.

Just like women having kids to WIC money.

---

Yep.

So someone take the bill at hand, whichever current bill stands the greatest chance of passing. Then explain the mechanics of it. Flowchart it. "Walk the dog" on it. Then include the cost and benefits to both public schools and private / home / charter schools; from the perspective of student outcomes at both and impacts to the public (community).

Before I ask my rep / Senator to vote either way on such a massive change in funding (both in cost (estimated 1st year cost of $1 billion) and concept) I'd like to know (and hope they know) how this would model out. Not just platitudes but real effects.

You are asking the impossible. You can't even model the current system. But it's clear where it's trending.

How are you going to model setups that haven't even been innovated yet?

Some teacher sick of her current school is going to grab 4 other teachers, rent out a church during the week on the cheap, enroll 100 kids, come up with with a 4 day teacher, 1 day work day rotation, hire an admin and an assistant and absolutely kick ass with great learning and a happier work life.

And there will be dozens and dozens of other successful approaches.

Will it be perfect? Absolutely not.

If we wait for perfect, we will never do anything.

Will it be better? Absolutely.

Where is model? My model is that individuals are better stewards of money and their children than the state and that will only improve when they bear the responsibility.

ChoppinDs40 said:

---

call public education what you want but it's not someone collecting a $6k check for homeschooling children that's state funded.

---

Yeah instead we are spending $13k for the same outcome. At least that money isn't going to some masters of public education who thinks 2+2 is racist.

All these comments about parents who just dont care and will waste the money. What do you think is happening now?

If they did move to a do nothing homeschool at least they wouldn't be causing problems in classrooms with other kids.

sam callahan said:

---

All these comments about parents who just do care and will waste the money. What do you think is happening now?

If they did move to a do nothing homeschool at least they wouldn't be causing problems in classrooms with other kids.

---

You're really okay with Texas taxpayers paying parents to have their kids not attend any school.

Quote:

---

Yeah instead we are spending $13k for the same outcome.

---

The bill would've still given them that same $13 (which is actually really $11k iirc) PLUS the $8k... so $19k or so. That's smart / conservative? Because that's exactly what they were being asked to do.

The school only gets the money if the butt is in the seat. So it would appear to be an either or...

If that's what it takes to offer good parents stuck in bad schools a way out, yes.

There are schools out there not benefitting the kids attending at all. Arguably making things worse for them. Is it a great loss if a kid missed that?

Your solution isn't saving every kid from bad situations/outcomes. And it sure isn't using every tax dollar wisely.

But that's the bad you are trying to set for vouchers.

texagbeliever said:

---

The school only gets the money if the butt is in the seat. So it would appear to be an either or...

---

It was not an either or. Read the amendment. They got the $8k plus the new school could still get Average Daily Attendance dollars.