News to me that Jared Patterson will not vote with the Republican caucus resulting in (Democrats' pick) being elected as Texas house speaker. He's an Aggie…he was elected as a republican in a republican district. I don't think this will work out for him the way he is hoping it will:

These are the 26 Republican members of the #TxLege House who skipped the third vote for GOP nominee. It is assumed they are the ones cutting the deal with the Democrats to block the @TXGOPCaucus nominee.

Keith Bell
Greg Bonnen
Brad Buckley
Dustin Burrows
Angie Chen Button
Gio…

— Michael Quinn Sullivan 🇺🇸 (@MQSullivan) December 7, 2024

ETA: Sorry guys, edited from "Democrat" to "Democrats' pick).

HarleySpoon said:

---

News to me that Jared Patterson will not vote with the Republican caucus resulting in Democrat being elected as Texas house speaker. He's an Aggie…he was elected as a republican in a republican district. I don't think this will work out for him the way he is hoping it will:

---

I wonder what the reason is. Do they have a grudge or issues with the Republican candidate for the Texas House Speaker?

A democrat will not be elected speaker. The argument is that those like Patterson will keep the "right" republican from being elected speaker.

HarleySpoon said:

---

News to me that Jared Patterson will not vote with the Republican caucus resulting in Democrat being elected as Texas house speaker. He's an Aggie…he was elected as a republican in a republican district. I don't think this will work out for him the way he is hoping it will:

These are the 26 Republican members of the #TxLege House who skipped the third vote for GOP nominee. It is assumed they are the ones cutting the deal with the Democrats to block the @TXGOPCaucus nominee.

Keith Bell
Greg Bonnen
Brad Buckley
Dustin Burrows
Angie Chen Button
Gio…

— Michael Quinn Sullivan 🇺🇸 (@MQSullivan) December 7, 2024

---

What part of Texas does he represent?

eric76 said:

---

HarleySpoon said:

---

News to me that Jared Patterson will not vote with the Republican caucus resulting in Democrat being elected as Texas house speaker. He's an Aggie…he was elected as a republican in a republican district. I don't think this will work out for him the way he is hoping it will:

---

I wonder what the reason is. Do they have a grudge or issues with the Republican candidate for the Texas House Speaker?

---

Check out #4...

https://ballotpedia.org/Jared_Patterson

Feels like the OP is fake news. Patterson is t going to get a Dem to be speaker. Pay attention people!

If Burrows wins he will have had way more Dem votes than Rep votes. So if Patterson votes for Burrows, then yes, he will be voting for the Dems' candidate. HTH

Burrows is a Democrat???


He's not. HTH

Good Bull when your fish buddy is the primary source on a Bad Bull story.

Texas House Republicans were meeting for their caucus to nominate a Republican for the Speaker.
Jared Patterson decided to walk out after the 2nd vote and no longer participate with the Republican representatives.

He is currently listed as supporting a candidate that is not the nominee selected by the GOP Caucus but one who has promised the Democrats that he would kill school vouchers and taxpayer-funded lobbying ban legislation.

At this time, despite his past conservative voting record, Jared is acting like a RINO.

DD88 said:

---

He is currently listed as supporting a candidate that is not the nominee selected by the GOP Caucus but one who has promised the Democrats that he would kill school vouchers and taxpayer-funded lobbying ban legislation.

---

In many of the more rural Republican areas, I don't think that school vouchers are much of an issue since there are few private schools to send your kids to.

When I was a kid, I only knew of a couple of local kids to go to a private school and they went to a private church school in Minnesota, not Texas.

School vouchers are more of a big city issue, aren't they?

In other words, while I am in favor of them in principle, they just don't seem to have any practical impact anywhere near me.

eric76 said:

---

HarleySpoon said:

---

News to me that Jared Patterson will not vote with the Republican caucus resulting in Democrat being elected as Texas house speaker. He's an Aggie…he was elected as a republican in a republican district. I don't think this will work out for him the way he is hoping it will:

---

I wonder what the reason is. Do they have a grudge or issues with the Republican candidate for the Texas House Speaker?

---

There's a long history with the names involved.

At best MQS is a propagandist. He burned his bridges with the Bonnen House and lost press credentials. In turn, Bonnen & Burrows secretly asked MQS to take out "RINO" Rs the next election cycle - in exchange for MQS to receive press credentials.

MQS did the right thing and exposed them. The downside, however, is that we've had warring factions ever since. The main MQS surrogate got busted last session grooming and assaulting a staffer. Instead of doing the right thing, they tried to help cover it up and the Burrows side did the right thing. The entire R side is the House is a mess.

Factor all of that into Patrick being a problematic LT Gov on the Senate side and the Gov's office having issues with both chambers and it's an even bigger mess between Abbott's picks and Patrick's picks.

Patterson is a solid conservative that found an early home in the Phelan/Burrows side of the House. He's a loyal lieutenant to that group and they hold some of the right skeletons to get legislation passed. This is him staying with the group he knows is effective and also keeping himself close to power.

um, there's another aggie on that list -- who was just named a distinguished alumni

oldag941 said:

---

A democrat will not be elected speaker. The argument is that those like Patterson will keep the "right" republican from being elected speaker.

---

You mean the republican that caucus members had promised to support?

These a-holes are liars. Plain and simple.

Schrute Farms said:

---

eric76 said:

---

HarleySpoon said:

---

News to me that Jared Patterson will not vote with the Republican caucus resulting in Democrat being elected as Texas house speaker. He's an Aggie…he was elected as a republican in a republican district. I don't think this will work out for him the way he is hoping it will:

---

I wonder what the reason is. Do they have a grudge or issues with the Republican candidate for the Texas House Speaker?

---

There's a long history with the names involved.

At best MQS is a propagandist. He burned his bridges with the Bonnen House and lost press credentials. In turn, Bonnen & Burrows secretly asked MQS to take out "RINO" Rs the next election cycle - in exchange for MQS to receive press credentials.

MQS did the right thing and exposed them. The downside, however, is that we've had warring factions ever since. The main MQS surrogate got busted last session grooming and assaulting a staffer. Instead of doing the right thing, they tried to help cover it up and the Burrows side did the right thing. The entire R side is the House is a mess.

Factor all of that into Patrick being a problematic LT Gov on the Senate side and the Gov's office having issues with both chambers and it's an even bigger mess between Abbott's picks and Patrick's picks.

Patterson is a solid conservative that found an early home in the Phelan/Burrows side of the House. He's a loyal lieutenant to that group and they hold some of the right skeletons to get legislation passed. This is him staying with the group he knows is effective and also keeping himself close to power.

---

Solid conservatives are not on the Phelan/Burrows side.

The Dem Caucus has said "Hell no" to Cook and "Hell yes" to Burrows.

Any Rep that votes Burrows will be censured by the Republican Party.

So, No, anyone who is on the Burrows side is not "solidly conservative". They are simply people who have chosen a side in a power struggle. But certainly not principled conservatives.

The whole last primary centered around replacing at least 14 anti-voucher incumbents with Abbott leading the way in order to get school vouchers passed.

School vouchers are not on the Republican Legislative Priorities, but a Taxpayer-funded Lobbying Ban and No Democrat Chairs are which is being promised to be killed by Burrows to get the Democrat votes and 14 RINO votes to gain the Speaker's seat.

Patterson is knowingly supporting this and needs to hear from his constituents.

From Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Patterson

Quote:

---

Jared Lynn Patterson (born April 1, 1983) is an American politician from Texas. A member of the Republican Party, he was elected to the Texas House of Representatives from the 106th district in November 2018, he assumed office on January 8, 2019. An analysis of votes in the 2023 regular session found that Patterson was the most right-wing of 85 Republican members of the Texas House.

...

During his time in office, Rep. Patterson has been an author on legislation to increase border security funding, lower property taxes, protect children from radical indoctrination, support first responders, and safeguard our pets. In 2021, Patterson played a key role in the passage of legacy conservative victories such as securing our Second Amendment rights with Constitutional Carry and protecting life with the Texas Heartbeat Act. In 2023, he passed HB 900, known as The READER Act, which protects Texas schoolchildren from explicit material.

---

So this makes him a RINO?

eric76 said:

---

From Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Patterson

Quote:

---

Jared Lynn Patterson (born April 1, 1983) is an American politician from Texas. A member of the Republican Party, he was elected to the Texas House of Representatives from the 106th district in November 2018, he assumed office on January 8, 2019. An analysis of votes in the 2023 regular session found that Patterson was the most right-wing of 85 Republican members of the Texas House.

...

During his time in office, Rep. Patterson has been an author on legislation to increase border security funding, lower property taxes, protect children from radical indoctrination, support first responders, and safeguard our pets. In 2021, Patterson played a key role in the passage of legacy conservative victories such as securing our Second Amendment rights with Constitutional Carry and protecting life with the Texas Heartbeat Act. In 2023, he passed HB 900, known as The READER Act, which protects Texas schoolchildren from explicit material.

---

So this makes him a RINO?

---

Past performance is not indicative of future results.

eric76 said:

---

So this makes him a RINO?

---

No, he is currently acting like a RINO in shirking his duty in walking out of the GOP Caucus and then pledging to violate the Caucus Rules in not supporting the chosen nominee. Further this nominee has promised to oppose 2 Legislative Priorities as well as the main issue (school choice) from the last primary.

Quote:

---

• Binding Agreement: In recent sessions, the Texas House Republican Caucus has implemented a rule that binds all caucus members to support the caucus-chosen nominee during the official House vote for Speaker. This agreement is intended to prevent division within the party and ensure a united front during the Speaker election.

---

Quote:

---

Patterson is a solid conservative

---

If he's working with democrats to put them on committee chairs then he is not in any way shape or form a "conservative".

Letting Democrats pick the Texas Speaker is peak RINO.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Letting Democrats pick the Texas Speaker is peak RINO.

---

It's not even RINO. At that point you're just a democrat too.

The school choice issue is kind of puzzling to me.

So I did some searching (but probably not enough) on the Internet.

The school vouchers would make more sense to me if they came out of the funding of the public school that the student would have attended. After all, it seems reasonable to think that if they aren't doing a good job, then their share of funding for the students going to private schools should come out of their funding.

Instead, the funding is apparently from the state, not the local school districts. So we want to obligate the state into spending more and more money. I'm not sure that sounds very Conservative. At least, it doesn't sound very fiscal Conservative.

However, that makes me wonder about the people complaining that the public schools shouldn't lose funding. If the school district isn't losing their share of funding, then what are they complaining about?

Shouldn't that funding be taken out of the local school district instead of creating a whole new spending program by the state?

As I pointed out earlier, private schools are more of a thing in the big cities than in the rural communities. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that most people in the rural areas seem more inclined to support their local school districts.

For what it's worth, I pulled up Google Maps and searched for private schools in the Texas Panhandle. It looks like there are far more private schools in Amarillo and Lubbock than in the rest of the Texas Panhandle combined. I don't know if it showed all the private schools in the Texas Panhandle, though.

The funding will come from the local public school. It's indirect.

If a student leaves public and goes private, they now get a voucher or ESA for whatever amount. $8,000 or $10,000 or whatever the eventual bill calls for.

The local public school district is only allowed to collect and keep $6160 in locally generated tax dollars per student. There are other adjustments due to poverty or special ed etc. But 6160 is the basic allotment. It's mandated and set by the state. It hasn't changed since 2019. If the local school district has appreciating property value, they typically take in more tax revenue (even with reducing the local tax rate) than the state allows with the $6160. So any excess revenue at the local level has to be sent to the state and is included in the General Fund through what used to be called Robin Hood Program.

The next caveat is that it's tied to Average Daily Attendance. So when that kid is no longer attending the public school, the district gets $6160 LESS in revenue. But the expenses (other than a cafeteria meal or maybe toilet paper stay the same). The other part of this is "Average Daily". So no district has 100% daily attendance. So the state takes a snapshot on a given day of what that Average is. Probably 94% or such. So reduce the $6160 per student enrolled by 6% due to typical attendance of students. Reduce the total revenue to the districts by 6%. Again, expenses have to be generally built and paid for around 100% attendance but revenue is reduced by 6%. If you are in business, you realize an issue here.

So if a school district of say, 40,000 students, loses 500 students to private school; great. Good for the kids. Good for the families. They will get their voucher (depending on the final bill and who is eligible). The reality is that those 500 students are not in the same school or classroom within the district. So the district will have reduced revenue of roughly $3 million. But there isn't a real reduction in expenses tied to these 500 students. If you are in business, you realize an issue here.

500 students is 1.25% of the students in the district. But again, you can't reduce expenses to the tune of laying off a teacher. This district has over 50 campuses, so assume those 500 students means each campus loses 10 students. Reasonable to assume those 10 students are not in the same class. So the only real way to impact and reduce expenses is reduce a teacher but we still need the same teachers if that classroom has 22 students or 20 students or 19 students.

This is all rough numbers and some broad assumptions but I used it to show how a student leaving public for private with a voucher will, in fact, reduce the revenue of the public school district.

I've heard our district's best teachers are now curriculum directors, teacher coaches, coordinators, etc but not teaching any students after being promoted. Perhaps to save a few teacher positions, these former great teachers can go back to teaching a couple classes per day in addition to their other job.

Great point. A lot of teachers do make the move to some district admin for opportunities to make more money. For instance, our district had a pay scale where a brand new teacher started at $60K. A 27-year experienced teacher would make about $67K. Many that had been in the district for 30 years were making in the 60's or low 70's.

Our district got aggressive on changing the pay scale to ALLOW seasoned teachers that wanted to teach in the classroom to stay in the classroom and also have opportunities for higher wages. Give the good teachers options to increase compensation without feeling like the only path is to leave the classroom. Also, it takes a cohort of seasoned teachers to mentor the new teachers. Otherwise trouble. Now teachers in our district still start at $60k but with years under their belt can make in the $80k 's to $90k. Not a ton but it is a ton to teachers.

Plus the state retirement calculations are tied to highest pay. So it's incentivizing teachers to make the most available, especially at the end of their careers. And that typically isn't in the classroom as I said above. So let's work to keep them in the classroom.

oldag941 said:

---

The funding will come from the local public school. It's indirect.

If a student leaves public and goes private, they now get a voucher or ESA for whatever amount. $8,000 or $10,000 or whatever the eventual bill calls for.

The local public school district is only allowed to collect and keep $6160 in locally generated tax dollars per student. There are other adjustments due to poverty or special ed etc. But 6160 is the basic allotment. It's mandated and set by the state. It hasn't changed since 2019. If the local school district has appreciating property value, they typically take in more tax revenue (even with reducing the local tax rate) than the state allows with the $6160. So any excess revenue at the local level has to be sent to the state and is included in the General Fund through what used to be called Robin Hood Program.

The next caveat is that it's tied to Average Daily Attendance. So when that kid is no longer attending the public school, the district gets $6160 LESS in revenue. But the expenses (other than a cafeteria meal or maybe toilet paper stay the same). The other part of this is "Average Daily". So no district has 100% daily attendance. So the state takes a snapshot on a given day of what that Average is. Probably 94% or such. So reduce the $6160 per student enrolled by 6% due to typical attendance of students. Reduce the total revenue to the districts by 6%. Again, expenses have to be generally built and paid for around 100% attendance but revenue is reduced by 6%. If you are in business, you realize an issue here.

So if a school district of say, 40,000 students, loses 500 students to private school; great. Good for the kids. Good for the families. They will get their voucher (depending on the final bill and who is eligible). The reality is that those 500 students are not in the same school or classroom within the district. So the district will have reduced revenue of roughly $3 million. But there isn't a real reduction in expenses tied to these 500 students. If you are in business, you realize an issue here.

500 students is 1.25% of the students in the district. But again, you can't reduce expenses to the tune of laying off a teacher. This district has over 50 campuses, so assume those 500 students means each campus loses 10 students. Reasonable to assume those 10 students are not in the same class. So the only real way to impact and reduce expenses is reduce a teacher but we still need the same teachers if that classroom has 22 students or 20 students or 19 students.

This is all rough numbers and some broad assumptions but I used it to show how a student leaving public for private with a voucher will, in fact, reduce the revenue of the public school district.

---

Thanks for the explanation.

Not trying to be argumentative, but I'm going to disagree a bit with your analysis.


There will be an incremental decrease in expenses. Even if the students are drawn uniformly from across the district there will be classes somewhere that will be canceled. And an associated decrease in salaries. And there SHOULD be a decrease in facility costs rolled into the next bond election, but that is really pie in the sky.

For example, call it 500 kids in a year. The number doesn't really matter. 6 classes per day * 500 students / 25 students per class will mean 120 fewer classes taught each semester. And trust me, the number of faculty required will drop.

Demographic trends cause increases and decreases in schools all the time. The admins will generally pack as many in a class as they can. But there is nothing magic that differentiates the expenses caused by losing students to vouchers as opposed to losing or gaining from demographics.

Or do you want to argue that 500 new students in a year would not increase expenses?

Well, you aren't being argumentative so I won't argue.

Any expense decrease will be a lagging impact to the revenue decrease. Public schools don't typically settle their enrollment until November. But they have to staff for day 1 of the school year (August). The state takes the count in November and the actual numbers aren't settled between local and state until a year after.

So I won't argue your points but just include this as a timing challenge where expenses are incurred well ahead of realizing accurate revenue from the state.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Patterson is a solid conservative

---

If he's working with democrats to put them on committee chairs then he is not in any way shape or form a "conservative".

---

The minority party having some chairs is a practice that goes back decades and decades, including when Texas was a solidly democrat state. So yeah, conserving that is conservative.

Ol Jock 99 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Patterson is a solid conservative

---

If he's working with democrats to put them on committee chairs then he is not in any way shape or form a "conservative".

---

The minority party having some chairs is a practice that goes back decades and decades, including when Texas was a solidly democrat state. So yeah, conserving that is conservative.

---

It is practice that needs to die in a deep red state. I stand by what I said. If you give democrats power then you are not a conservative.

Answer a simple question. How does giving democrats committee chairs advance conservative values?

eric76 said:

---

The school choice issue is kind of puzzling to me.

So I did some searching (but probably not enough) on the Internet.

The school vouchers would make more sense to me if they came out of the funding of the public school that the student would have attended. After all, it seems reasonable to think that if they aren't doing a good job, then their share of funding for the students going to private schools should come out of their funding.

Instead, the funding is apparently from the state, not the local school districts. So we want to obligate the state into spending more and more money. I'm not sure that sounds very Conservative. At least, it doesn't sound very fiscal Conservative.

However, that makes me wonder about the people complaining that the public schools shouldn't lose funding. If the school district isn't losing their share of funding, then what are they complaining about?

Shouldn't that funding be taken out of the local school district instead of creating a whole new spending program by the state?

As I pointed out earlier, private schools are more of a thing in the big cities than in the rural communities. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that most people in the rural areas seem more inclined to support their local school districts.

For what it's worth, I pulled up Google Maps and searched for private schools in the Texas Panhandle. It looks like there are far more private schools in Amarillo and Lubbock than in the rest of the Texas Panhandle combined. I don't know if it showed all the private schools in the Texas Panhandle, though.

---

When the average daily attendance drops in a school district because a kid takes a voucher, what happens to the district's funding? Hint: It doesn't increase and doesn't stay the same. The districts are paying for the vouchers indirectly.

What the district doesn't lose is the local taxes they keep for themselves but their expenses will drop if fewer teachers are needed and eventually so will local taxes.

Vouchers, as envisioned, actually reduces total expenditures on education because in most cases the voucher isn't enough to cover the full cost of tuition so more of the educational costs are shifted to the parents and away from the local school district.

Not correct. The isd doesn't " keep" local tax revenue in excess of what the state allows. Nothing above what the ADA x $6160 allows. There used to be a 1 year grace period where the isd would
Keep locally generated taxes even if there was a drop
In enrollment. That was changed 2 or 3 legislatures ago. Now there is a "true-up" with the state but about a year or more later.

Sorry guys, edited my op for technical accuracy from "Democrat" to "Democrats' pick."

Brooks Landgraff is also an Ag; c/o 2003.

Really good dude back when we were in the Band together; though he was a B-Co Streetfighter but I don't hold that against him