Burnt Orange Report

More money doesn't mean we is teaching our kids better.

Then why do the well-to-do school districts always manage to come up with the highest scores?

Spending money foolishly like some school districts (HISD for one) won't get you anywhere. Trust me -- I work for a consulting firm that rapes school districts looking to spend money on any new fad.

Spending money wisely and putting it in the classroom, at the teacher-to-student level, not only increases the scores on these pointless and baseless standardized tests, but increases GPAs, AP scores, college admissions, and gives students all the right tools going forward.

For some reason, suburban school districts have figured this out. San Antonio, Dallas, Houston have not. But to limit spending and to flat-cap spending in education is ridiculous, and is especially hollow as we continue to allow illegal aliens into the country (with no chance of citizenship -- solely to legally give large corporations millions of new cheap workers), as we attempt to put men on Mars and back on the Moon, as we try to build a missile defense system that can't hit a bleeping, lighted target merely in simulation, and as we continue to find tax cuts for the top one-percent.

Maybe we should stop wasting money on bad standardized tests, bad national reforms that teachers hate and have to dumb-down lesson plans to, and start setting the bar higher, expecting more, and spending the money to get it.

Cheerio.

Monceaux, I believe that the boifromTroy was kidding- hence the egregious grammatical error in his statement.

What makes you think that a state-wide property tax? The sentence before you say, "Texans' property taxes are too high." I think a progressive state income tax coupled with large property tax reductions, such as the one Eddie Rodriguez has proposed, is a better solution.

Perry's position and the State's inaction will have diasterous long term consequences. With a low skilled work force (especially as more and more low skill jobs are exported to Asia, et. al.), we are doomed to lose our middle class, and hence become another 3rd world country. If this keeps up, in 25 years, this State will have the same class structure as our neighbors across the Rio Grande

More money doesn't mean we is teaching our kids better.

Actually, he is absolutely right. Above a basic infrastructure level, higher funding levels have never been shown to correlate with improved academic performance (that's why the teachers union is so adamantly opposed to quantifying their performance via testing).

Or, do you deny that education was more effective 40 years ago, when per pupil expenditures, in present dollars, were only a fraction of today? We learned better in schools without air conditioning, for Pete's sake...now, they are building $79 million high schools. More money needed, indeed.

Our kids are getting the absolute best possible education or conversely, they are hopeless so there's no use pouring any more money into it.

Texas teacher pay and related indices of education expenditures place us securely in the middle of the ranking among the states. Sounds about right to me.

Furthermore, Texans' property taxes are too high and if a majority of taxing districts reach the $1.50 cap then the system will be unconstitutional and there will be no funding for schools whatsoever. The best way to fix it would be to institute a state wide property tax

Research, Andrew, research. The reason that the cap defines the system as unconstitutional is precisely because it would then be, in effect, a statewide property tax, which is explicitly unconstitutional. Our wise government made sure that a statewide property tax could not be used to circumvent the ban on a state income tax.

I think a progressive state income tax

Sorry, Texans are too smart for such soak the rich tactics. A state income tax requires approval of a Constitutional amandment from the voters. You can try to sell them on a story that only the rich will get ripped off, but they know better. You will Never. See. A. State. Income. Tax. In. Texas.

I would like to see a state income tax in Texas. I'd also like to have a threesome w/ Jennifer Lopez and Brittany Spears- neither of them are very likely to happen any time in the foreseeable future. A property tax, however, is supported by Dewhurst and other Republicans and as a result has an actual chance of happening. It'd have to be approved by the voters but if it is clear that they'd have lower rates as a result and the money would be going to public education. Furthermore, Mark, I did do my research- I know that that is why it would be unconstitutional, I thought that it didn't need to be stated because it seems so obvious.

But the statement that really chaps my ass, Mark, is when you say that being in the middle of the state rankings is just about right. No, it is not. I love Texas- it is my home and will remain my home for the rest of my life. I want this state to be the most educated, most prosperous, healthiest, strongest, happiest place in the world. I want Texas to be a place that is a model for other states and other nations- a place that people all over the world talk about with awe and respect. As a result, being in "the middle" is absolutely unacceptable. The only acceptable ranking for Texas in performance, teacher pay, infrastructure and every other measure of excellence is first. So when Rick Perry sees a system that is "in the middle" i.e. that is mediocre and says that that's about right, he is short changing Texans and he is unfit to call himself leader of this state.

I second Mark on the school spending issue. The Law of diminishing marginal returns seems to set in pretty quickly after $4K or $5K per student, and most research seems to show that you don't get much educational benefit beyond that. In the extreme, you have D.C. public schools, which spend more than $11K per student, and yet a majority of 8th graders are functionally illiterate. Just because Perry says you don't need to spend more, doesn't mean he thinks everything is fine. He just believes that more spending won't solve the problems schools are facing. Not exactly an untenable position. You might disagree, but it is certainly a position a sensible person could come to.

However, in general I can't claim to know much about the intricacies of Texas school finance, so I'll restrict my attention to discussing what I do know, namely the experience a decade back of my own state of Michigan, shortly before my family moved here.

Basically, the issue was that local property taxes were spiralling out of control, voters where fed up, and some of the problems of poorer districts could legitimately be ascribed lacking funding for needed programs (which, like I said above is not always the case, and Detroit public schools still have a better than 50% drop out rate in High School, but at the time there actual funding shortfalls for some districts). Repubs had been critiqueing the Dems for years about not doing anything on the issue, so then State Senator Debbie Stabenow introduced a bill to call the GOPs bluff. According to pretty much everyone I've talked to, including several state legislators, her main goal was to embarrass the GOP, not get the law passed. That is not the way it worked out, however. Then Gov. Engler (and former State Senate Majority leader before he upset Blanchard) called Stabenow's bluff, and instructed GOP senators to all vote for it. It was passed by the legislature and put on the ballot in the spring. I think it was '94, but in might have been '93. Anyway it was called Proposal A and it passed quite easily.

What Prop. A did was dramatically cut property taxes, and pass limits on future increases, but raise the sales tax to 6% from 4%. Roughly speaking (there are some complexities, but they don't deal with the heart of the issue), all that sales tax revenue goes into a fund which then gets distributed on a per-pupil basis to the school districts. Right now that level is about $6,700. Local school districts can raise some additional revenue through property taxes if they wish, but their ability to do so is very limited. Anyway, except for some carping from suburban school districts which lost a ton of cash (full disclosure, I went to some of those schools, and every public teacher I knew hated Prop A for just that reason), the system has worked pretty well. At least, property taxes are down and most of the funding inequalities have been smoothed out. It seems to me that, in general, per-pupil handouts with some local ability to supplement the basic level are the way to go.

Also, using the sales tax is best because it (a) doesn't involve using an income tax, which is often progressive and thus redistributive, though not in MI which has constitutionally flat rate income taxes and (b) the sales tax only hits consumption, not investment, which economics demonstrates is the least distortive way of raising revenue. You can disagree about the fairness of it all you want, but the economy as a whole is much better off when you don't tax capital investment, and sales taxes don't.

A wonderful side benefit is that, in a state like Texas which doesn't have a stupid Blaine ammendment in its constitition like Michigan does, it would be a simple step once the program were initiated to extend the per-pupil grant to private schools as well and actually give poor students an opportunity at a good education. Even if it doesn't lead to vouchers, though, it spurs competition within the public school districts for students, which is a good thing in and of itself.

Respectfully,

Sherk

True, money is no panacea, but there is a bare minimum of funds that a district needs to function. My cousin is a teacher in DISD, and she says that her students have no textbooks that they can take home because the District (and the students) do not have the money. If you cannot take books home, you cannot do homework - no homework, means no meaningful education.

It makes you want to shed crocodile tears when a suburban district has to drop its marching band because of lack of funds for uniforms (remember the Music Man), when several school districts cannot afford textbooks or funds for a physics teacher. (Actually, athletics consumes an enormous amount of a school budget - axe that and there are some funds. Problem is that most folks in Texas would sooner an arm than Friday night football).

In some truly problem districts, as Sherk suggests, money, at least as has been traditionally spent, has not acheived results. As Sen. Moyihan concluded in the 1970s, one key component to good schooling is a household that values education and will push children to succeed as students. At the very bottom socio-economic strata, this means getting the parents involved, which means a radical, new approach to education is needed. Conservatives will criticize the cost and the "imposition" into the family, but we cannot right- off a generation of kids.

What is needed is a program that forces parents to attend night classes of their own, to learn basic skills of their own, to install the values of education. If they don't show up, they can face enforcement mechanisms (i.e. Court) to combat truancy. Radical? Yes. But sorely needed.

a radical, new approach to education is needed. Conservatives will criticize

Not nearly so vociferously as the teachers union. You can paint conservatives with a "we hate the kids brush" all you like, but any person who has studied the issue knows that by far the harshest obstruction to innovation is from the teachers union. Note the terminology: not TEACHERS, but the teachers union. They are definitely NOT the same thing.

EXCREMENT is a great way to describe Rick Perry's attitude and actions toward public schools.

On the subject of "Robin Hood" (actually known as Share The Wealth), I'm not sure that a lot of the new crop of Republican senators and Reps realize how much opposition they are going to receive from some of their local school districts when they try to do away with this plan.

For example, there is at least one house district where the GOP winner campaigned on getting rid of robin hood although EVERY school district in his house district BENEFITS under Robin Hood.

Yes, I totally understand the attitude of property-rich school districts not wanting to give money to the property poor ones, but the fact of the matter is that there are a HECK of a lot more school districts who will be against this measure in the upcoming special session than those who will be for it. But, because their representatives and senators were elected with money from PACS whose main goal was to get rid of Robin Hood, Promote School vouchers (not to mention tort reform and a host of other stuff), how likely do you think it is that those reps will actually vote their districts' interests over special interests? Not too darned likely, if you ask me.

Plus, I'd offer to bet anyone right now a shiny new dime that no plan that comes out of the April Special Session will be upheld by any court IF one even comes our. It's like Ratliff told the Texas Observer (paraphrasing here): Everyone thinks a school finance plan will be easy because more than three quarters of the legislature HASN'T BEEN THROUGH A SCHOOL FINANCE BATTLE during their tenure.

A School Finance plan authored by radical Republican Religious Right novices...sounds like fun to me!

In response to Mark's denigration of Teacher's Unions, I see no reason why the Teacher's Unions would be opposed to the plan I suggested (essentially schooling for parents).

Yes, Teacher's Unions are often opposed to certain radical changes in the education system, but usually rightly so. So many interests want to short change the public schools (e.g. voucher supporters), and they, being in the trenches, know the effects and oppose these measures.

Of the top of my head (and I am sure there are probably others of which I am unaware or forgot) the only measure I can think of that the Teachers Unions opposed that I agree with, was back in the 80s, the Ross Perot-lead teacher competency exams.

As far as Robin Hood goes, essentially it is a compromise - which means that no one likes it. All sides put up with it, but very few have realistic plans on how to replace it. It will be a Herculean task to get some sort of consensus to replace the system. Of course, to abolish it without a replacement system is assinine, but then again, if we took all the idiots out of the Legislature, then we wouldn't have representative government.

I predict nothing changes, because it will be to hard to get consensus, especially after Craddick, Perry and the other Rethuglicans were so heavy handed and ruled with a "my way or the highway" approach.

Look for this issue to blow up in their face and the people will start to miss Democratic leadership.

Property taxes have an inherent flaw: They assume because you have property that is worth X, you have the money to pay for it.

Example 1: My parents owned 6 acres in the mid 70s outside the city limits. The area was annexed in the 80s and the area attracted a lot of growth, thus raising the value of the land. By that time, my mother was a widow and could not afford the taxes.

Example 2: Counties are known to inflate the value of homes. I have protested the valuation of my home the last two times, both values about $10 a square foot above the average selling price of homes within my neighborhod. Although my current mortgage is 1/4 of my salary, my salary has not risen enough to keep up with the rising value of the house, which has gone up 33% in less than five years.

Property taxes assume that you have the income to match the current property value. This is not unlike the taxes that we had prior to the 20th century, where people were taxed based on what they were expected to make.

Our current state tax, based on the sales tax, is highly regressive. Progressive taxes may be unfair, but so is the current system, particularly for those who cannot afford it. Tax me for what money I make--not a wild-ass extrapolation of what you think I should be making or what I could make if I sold the property.

monceaux: Right on. As a former teacher, I can say with lots of experience that the student/teacher ratio means a world of difference in how much time teachers can spend with students on their thinking process and not just grading the output. Real teaching is more about the former than the latter. The difference between 14 and even 21 students is incredible. It means more time for comments on work and tests, more time for one-on-one conference outside the class, and more time even in class with students.

Simply spending more money on education (as the Bush administration now sings) means little. It's where and how it is spent. Funding pet programs and more tests is not money well spent.

Our current state tax, based on the sales tax, is highly regressive.

The sales tax may not be a progressive as the income tax, but surely you agree that rich people spend more money on taxable items, and therefore pay more sales tax than poor people?

the student/teacher ratio means a world of difference

Primarily in that it reduces the odds of having one or two disruptive students who require 90% of the teacher's attention, to the detriment of the well-behaved kids. Until a modicum of dicipline is allowed to be introduced into the classroom, results will be disappointing.

Of course, the education industry loves a low student-teacher ratio, in that it means you have to build twice as many schools...and hire twice as many principals, and assistant principals, and...

The sales tax may not be a progressive as the income tax, but surely you agree that rich people spend more money on taxable items, and therefore pay more sales tax than poor people?

That's not the point. It's not about the raw dollars, but the precentage of income that goes to taxes. See the following report for the facts. When the lowest 20% income group pays 8.5% to sales taxes and the top 1% pays 1.2%, you see the disparity.

Primarily in that it reduces the odds of having one or two disruptive students who require 90% of the teacher's attention, to the detriment of the well-behaved kids. Until a modicum of dicipline is allowed to be introduced into the classroom, results will be disappointing.

That could be a reason, but it is not the "primary" reason. Sure, some districts have more discipline problems than others. But the ability to spend more time one-on-one can eliminate some of those discipline problems.

It sounds like you think all discipline is negative action. Instead, discipline can be very positive.

I would agree that some negative discipline is sometimes needed. My sister-in-law had a "sexual predator" in her elementary class but could not tell any of the other parents, and the child could not be removed.

And that was a private school.

Of course, the education industry loves a low student-teacher ratio, in that it means you have to build twice as many schools...and hire twice as many principals, and assistant principals, and...

Yeah, Mark, it's alllll a conspiracy.

You're right, if we could just impose a sales tax of 5000% on rich people and no sales tax on the "poor" (i.e., those with only basic cable, no pay channels), we can achieve the Holy Grail of liberalism - income equality! Look how well it worked in Russia!

Yeah, Mark, it's alllll a conspiracy.

Funny how, whenever it's a private business seeming to grasp power, it IS a conspiracy, but whenever it's a government entity seeming to grasp power, it's "for our best interest".

You're right, if we could just impose a sales tax of 5000% on rich people and no sales tax on the "poor" (i.e., those with only basic cable, no pay channels), we can achieve the Holy Grail of liberalism - income equality! Look how well it worked in Russia!

How typical. You can't respond to facts with anything approaching reason, so you take an extreme view and mock it. "You're right"? I didn't even propose anything, except to point out the unfair tax burden in this state.

If you weren't such an angry conservative, your blood pressure would allow you to read what people actually write instead of making up stuff.

When conservatives talk about the flat tax, it's all based on "fairness." But I'm glad to hear you admit that you're not interested in fairness. I somehow doubt that you are in the top 5% or even 10% of wage earners in this state, but please correct if I'm wrong. Otherwise, it's amusing watching someone argue that he deserves to be screwed.

To equate equal tax burden with "income equality" is pretty far fetched even for extremists like yourself. That you think that is what liberalism is about shows you truly have no idea what you are talking about. Further, to equate liberalism with communism is nothing more than "hate speech" and stupidity.

I find it insulting to trivialize history by comparing people to Nazis or Soviets and to be personally compared with them.

But this is the face of the political extremists in this country.

Funny how, whenever it's a private business seeming to grasp power, it IS a conspiracy, but whenever it's a government entity seeming to grasp power, it's "for our best interest".

Are you a real person or just a bot? Can you even stick to a topic, Mark? What the hell does does lowering the student/teacher ratio have to do with a government entity grabbing power? Nothing.

Go back to your Clinton Chronicles.

What the hell does does lowering the student/teacher ratio have to do with a government entity grabbing power?

Let's track back, then, shall we?

I wrote:

"Of course, the education industry loves a low student-teacher ratio, in that it means you have to build twice as many schools...and hire twice as many principals, and assistant principals, and..."

Translation: one aspect of lowering the student/teacher ratio is that it empowers the education industry by forcing huge bond issues to construct new schools and additions to existing ones, along with all of the bureaucratic augmentation and increased union dues implied.

You responded:

"Yeah, Mark, it's alllll a conspiracy."

Translation: I don't have to address your charge of power-grabbing by the education industry on the merits, I'll just call you paranoid.

I responded:

"Funny how, whenever it's a private business seeming to grasp power, it IS a conspiracy, but whenever it's a government entity seeming to grasp power, it's "for our best interest".

Translation: The same people who, like Krugman, think Enron more significant than 9/11 look the other way when its the public school system which is doing the non-accountable power-grabbing.

You responded:

"Can you even stick to a topic, Mark?"

Translation: I don't want to stick to the topic, Mark, because I might have to address your argument.

I don't have to address your charge of power-grabbing by the education industry on the merits,

What merits? You have presented none.

You played the fear factor, not me. Lower student/teacher has a significant impact on improving education, but you don't like that and can't argue it on its own merit, so you pull out the fear of a power-grabbing "education industry."

You leap to conclusions like "twice the buildings, twice the yadayadayada." Yet, those figures are pulled out of the air. Furthermore, it doesn't deal with the argument on its merit: Do lower ratios improve learning?

Is there waste in schools? You bet. I see the joke of a school board called DISD. But you're going beyond that, arguing that anything more spent on education is just the "education industry" grabbing power--a vacuous entity. Let's lump a bunch of disparate groups, even opposing groups, into one monolithic entity.

No, Mark, I don't have any interest in your fear mongering.

I don't want to stick to the topic, Mark, because I might have to address your argument.

This is the favorite tactic of conservatives: I won't deal with the topic at hand, so I'll make up a different argument--my little pet argument about over-reaching government--and insinuate it into the discussion so that you have to argue my terms.

Really, Mark, your hypocrisy is just too easy of a target. Just look at your response about the inequality of the taxes. Talk about running away from the argument and facts . . . .