[CSPS] FW: update on state legislation

[Lisa Ellis]

Dear CSPSers, 
 
Here's a copy of a letter I sent this morning to the schoolwide enrichment
group.  It's long, but it doesn't cover many of the issues of interest to
CSPS specifically, so stay tuned for those notes from Lisa Halperin.
 
Best, 
Lisa Ellis
 
Hello All!
 
Last night I attended the school board workshop on state school financing.
Superintendent Johnson briefed the board on the proposals currently under
consideration in the Texas house of representatives.  They are appalling: in
my opinion, even worse than what we have now.  
 
The first item of interest for this list is that the already far-too-small
amount of state money for g/t programs and AP courses would be *reduced to
zero* under these proposals (CSHB 2 and 3, which have made it to the floor
on nearly straight party-line votes thus far).  
 
I won't cover all of the scary details of the legislation.  Here are just a
few things:
 
1. The claim that 3 billion more in state money is being spent is only
partly true, and our district would be among the least benefitted.  After
taking into account new mandates and reporting requirements, we come out
even or slightly in the red; if you take inflation into account we are clear
losers.
 
2. The reduction in property taxes by one-third forces us to rely on
as-yet-unappropriated state funding to make up the difference.  Given past
experience, this is unlikely consistently to appear. Under the bill we would
be allowed to raise up to 10 cents per  $100 in property valuation in 2 cent
increments over five years, with a supermajority of two-thirds required at
each of the (minimum) five local referenda.  Even if they all passed, we'd
still be 40 cents short of current funding.  If you think that system
restricts local autonomy, you should see the rest of the bill!
 
3. Much of what is promised to teachers is a mere transfer of what they were
promised a few years ago, but not actually paid.
 
4. The bill amounts to a continuation of the effective statewide property
tax, just at a lower rate.  This is unlikely to pass constitutional muster
(the federal courts ruled such a system unconstititional, and have given the
legislature until this October to redress the problem; the state has
appealed).
 
5. As reported by your superintendent and board members, the view of many of
our legislators is that schools need to cut the fat, and that they will do
better with less under stricter state supervision.  According to the
superintendent, almost every provision in this bill came straight from the
recommendations of Governor Perry's business advisory council.  The only
major one of their recommendations missing from the bill is a proposal for
state funding for private school vouchers, and those are reportedly in the
works.  The bill also provides for much more volatile school board
elections, such that majorities of the board could be won in a single
election.  I don't want this list to become political, but I think any
non-partisan reasonable observer can draw some conclusions about the
legislature's attitude toward the public schools from these facts.   
 
If you wish, you could give Rep. Fred Brown a telephone call today and tell
him what you think of this legislation.  Here's how to reach him:
 
Capitol Office 
Room EXT E2.808
P.O. Box 2910 
Austin, TX 78768 
(512) 463-0698 
(512) 463-5109 Fax 	
District Office 
1920 West Villa Maria Road
Suite 303
Bryan, TX 77802
(979) 822-9797
(979) 822-7979 Fax
 
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist14/brown.htm
<http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist14/brown.htm> 
 
He accepts e-mail via his web site, too.
 
Thanks for reading all this.  I hope that next time I write it's with good
news about enrichment funding, not bad news about schools in general...
 
All the best, 
Lisa Ellis
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://PHILEBUS.tamu.edu/pipermail/csps/attachments/20050309/50e2e29d/attachment.html