February 2010
Dave McNeely discusses the politics and developments affecting public education in Texas

The continually roiling waters of public school spending in Texas can be confusing to ordinary folks – and with good reason, with acronyms like WADA (Weighted Average Daily Attendance) and LEA (local education agency) being thrown around.

Meanwhile, schools are often the tail wagged by several different dogs. Add in the federal stimulus program, student testing, a hot governor's race in Texas, and the national-versus-state standards involved in the Obama administration's "Race to the Top" scholastic ranking initiative (gasp for air!) and things get even more complex.

Then there are the who-tells-whom-to-do-what-and-who-pays-for-it squabbles. State legislators complain about the feds attaching to federal money requirements that amount to mandates. School officials often grouse that state legislators hand down directives without enough money to carry them out. What those dispensing the money see as due diligence, fiscal caution and good governance are often regarded by the recipients as unnecessary meddling and micromanagement.

The confusion, and accompanying expressions of concern about Bossy Big Brother in Washington, ramped up in 2009 because of the federal government's economic stimulus program, known as the American Recovery Reinvestment Act (ARRA), and the "Race to the Top" competition. Gov. Rick Perry has blasted the stimulus program as too much interference from Washington, even while officially accepting almost all of the money allocated for Texas.

Of the approximately $16 billion in federal stimulus money designated for Texas over two years, at least $6.4 billion is to be spent on public education. Top Texas legislative officials in the 2009 legislative session, however, wanted to balance the state's budget without dipping into its $9.1 billion Rainy Day Fund. Consequently, the state government allocated half of the education stimulus money to replace funds it already was supposed to spend on schools. Of the remainder, $2.2 billion is dedicated to at-risk students and special education, and $1 billion to construction bonds.

"That doesn't help school districts pay for bus drivers, fix the roof or pay other operating expenses," said Catherine Clark of the Texas Association of School Boards. She was interviewed by Laylan Copelin, a former and longtime reporter on the Austin American-Statesman's Capitol staff. He now works at the State Comptroller's Office and is helping track and explain the distribution of the stimulus funds.

Clark told Copelin, who writes a periodic column called "On the Money" for the comptroller's Web site, that school officials across Texas know the stimulus money is a fleeting thing. The extra cash to spur the economy won't be around after the two-year distribution period ends. What that means, Clark said, is that spending the stimulus money on new personnel is risky.

"You fund new salaries at your peril," she said. "There's a cliff at the end of this."

Frances Koch, who is the Victoria ISD executive director of budget and finance, told the Victoria Advocate that her schools, before the stimulus, were to receive $43.9 million from the state government. But under the federal stimulus formula, the district will get $39.5 million. It had to apply to the federal government for another $4.3 million to make up the difference, Koch said.

Tracy Young, a spokesperson for Texas House Speaker Joe Straus, told the Victoria newspaper that the state set up the process that way "mainly to keep track of how districts are using the funds."

Some districts prefer people to computers

In Edna, near Victoria, Superintendent Bob Wells said his schools used the stimulus money to create two new positions.

"We hired a math and science coordinator to make sure we're doing the best we can in our instruction… ," Wells told the Victoria newspaper.

Victoria ISD Superintendent Bob Moore said the uncertainty about funding has him nervous.

"We don't know what the future holds," Moore said. "It really puts pressure on the Legislature to make sure once federal funds are gone that they look at a continual fund of revenue."

Even in the face of the one-time nature of the stimulus money, Austin ISD also is using a sizable chunk of its allocation to create 91.5 new jobs. That's partly because some of the money is earmarked for at-risk and special education students, and it can't be spent at the district's discretion.

Austin ISD legislative liaison Christy Rome quips that it won't sit well with the people who are hired if their jobs disappear in two years. But helping students requires people, Rome says. So the district is hiring them, anyway, hoping it will be able to absorb the new recruits and associated costs after the stimulus money runs out.

Austin ISD invited district residents to participate in meetings and an online survey to solicit suggestions on how to deal with the projected shortfall for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. New Superintendent Meria Carstarphen, in her first "State of the District" speech in mid-November, voiced the angst many school officials feel as they look toward 2010-2011 and beyond.

"Now we're getting to the part that makes everyone nervous — how do we fund our schools so they are effective and our students are successful while maintaining our budget integrity?" Carstarphen said. "We all know too well the state of our economic climate. Our school system is anything but immune to the turbulence the state is facing, with double-digit sales tax declines coupled with our own local property tax declines.

"The most recent news we've received from our appraisal district projects a drop of 8 percent in commercial property values for AISD, which increases our projected $15 million deficit to close to $20 million," Carstarphen continued. "These austere conditions necessitate tough-minded budget tradeoffs."

Tighten the state belt?

To help prepare for a projected shortfall that faces the Legislature in 2011, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, presiding officer of the Texas Senate, is suggesting that state agencies cut their budgets by 2.5 percent during the current two-year spending period. However, Dewhurst would exempt education and health and human services from that request, he told the Austin American-Statesman's editorial board.

State Sen. Dan Patrick, a Houston Republican and arguably the most conservative member of the Senate, nonetheless is pondering new sources of state revenue to shore up school budgets. Texas is one of a handful of states that does not have an income tax and relies primarily on local property taxes to fund schools. Patrick told the Houston Chronicle that he was polling school superintendents in his district as to whether they would favor an increase in the state sales tax to aid education funding.

"I believe our property taxes are maxed out," Patrick said.

Race to the top

Late in the year, Gov. Perry took issue with the Obama administration's effort to get states to participate in the development of national standards for reading and math as part of a competition for $4.6 billion in federal money earmarked for educational innovations.

Perry's jawboning against Washington's intrusion comes on the heels of his campaign for the Republican nomination in the March 2 primary against his most formidable challenger, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. She is, by his account, a Washington insider, and Perry's campaign has blasted most everything that has to do with the federal government.

In a Nov. 23 letter, the governor directed Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott, a former gubernatorial aide, to spurn the Obama administration's effort to get Texas to join every state but Alaska in developing national standards for English and math — an effort led by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.

"Texas is already ahead of most other states in setting college- and career-ready standards in our schools," Perry wrote. "The citizens of Texas, not the federal government, know what is best for our children. As the federal government continues its sweeping expansion of federal authority from the financial, energy and health care systems, it is now attempting to increase its intrusion into Texas classrooms."

Scott dutifully sent a letter to Texas' congressional delegation echoing Perry's contention that Texas leads other states in developing tough standards.

The U.S. Department of Education seems to be "placing its desire for a federal takeover of public education above the interests of the 4.7 million schoolchildren in the state of Texas by setting two different starting lines — one for nearly every other state in the country and one for Texas," Scott wrote. "Because Texas has chosen to preserve its sovereign authority to determine what is appropriate for Texas children to learn in its public schools, the state is now placed at a serious disadvantage in competing for its share of [the grant money]."

U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, says that Texas' refusal to work with other states on developing common standards hurts students in the Lone Star State.

"Other states want to race to the top, but Gov. Perry remains determined to pursue an ideologically driven race to the bottom," Doggett says.

And those are just some of the currents swirling around public education in Texas. If it seems contentious — and confusing — that's probably because it is.

DAVE MCNEELY has been reporting on Texas politics and government since 1962.