1. Funding Public Education in Texas August 2012 VATAT Conference

2. Texas Public School FACTS

3. Texas Public School Statistics 1,021 school districts and 207 charters 8,526 campuses 4.9 million students 50% Hispanic; 31% White and 13% African American 59% Economically Disadvantaged 17% LEP

4. Texas Public School Staff 335,000 Teachers 663,000 Total Employees Teacher Profiles 77% Female & 23% Male Beginning……..6% 1-5 yrs……….30% Over 20 yrs….17%

5. Shifting Demographics Total student population has increased by 21% over the last 10 years The number of Economically Disadvantaged students has increased by one million (2 million to 3 million) in the last 10 years

6. New Accountability Standards STAAR initiated in 2012 Increased testing from 19 days to 45 days End of Course Exams Pass a total of 11 to 15 EOC Exams to graduate…dependent on graduation plan

7. So….With the Change in Demographics and the Increase in Student Needs in addition to Increased Accountability Standards one would think that REDUCING FUNDING would not be in order….However….

8. What They Knew and When They Knew it: The 2006 School Tax Cut Created A Structural Deficit In 2006, the Fiscal Note said that for 2008-2009: Predicted Cost of Property Tax Reduction$14.2 B (Buy down from $1.50 to $1.00) Predicted Amount of New Revenue$ 8.3 B (Business Tax) Predicted Shortfall$ 5.9 B

9. And then the gap grew: Our $10 Billion Structural Deficit Bill $

10. The 82 nd Legislature Cut Spending on Public Education Underfunded Current Law Formula Funding$2.5 Billion Target Revenue$1.5 Billion Subtotal $4.0 Billion Cut Grant Aid$1.4 Billion TOTAL $5.4 Billion

11. 82 nd Legislature Left Money in Rainy Day Fund RDF is designed to pay for ongoing expenses during an economic recession Contrary to the spin, the Legislature did not spend or commit the RDF—over $6.5 billion remains un- appropriated from projected $9.5 billion The Legislature even rejected the contingent use of the RDF –Howard Amendment would have been spent RDF to fund enrollment growth –But only the amount above $6.4 billion already projected to be in fund at end of 2013 –And only to the extent needed to fund enrollment growth, but not more than $2.2 billion

12. 82 nd Legislature Abandoned Historical Commitment to Fund Schools Created Regular Program Allotment Adjustment Factor—change in philosophy Allows legislature to adjust funding by a multiplier that produces an across the board cut This is done through appropriations rather than through regular lawmaking Rep. Patrick’s Amendment eliminates this trick after they write 2014-15 budget Watch out for an extension

13. What Makes the Problem So Complicated?

14. Equity Every Texas student is equally valuable and therefore we should invest in each of them equitably Every Texas student should have equal educational opportunities Equitable funding is the only way to produce adequate funding Equal funding WILL NOT provide Equal Education

15. Same...DistrictTax Rate*Revenue** Location Alamo Heights$1.04$6,243 San Antonio$1.04$5,036 Size Glen Rose$0.825$8,424 Diboll$1.04$4,881 Tax Rate Austin$1.079$6,171 Amarillo$1.08$5,094 Revenue Lamar Cons.$1.02$5,475 Calallen$1.17$5,475 Examples of Inequity Courtesy of Equity Center

16. As Compared to Our Neighbors College Station ISD TR$5,968 Willis ISD TR$5,363 Madisonville ISD TR$5,138 Conroe ISD TR$5,456 Richards ISD TR$6,695 New Waverly TR$5,003 AVG TR= $5,603 vs. HISD $5,131 Additional Revenue=$3.4Million

17. Local Property Taxes Alone Can’t Make up the Cut At maximum tax rate of $1.17, schools could only raise about $2.4 billion in new revenue state wide More than a fifth of the districts are already at the maximum rate of $1.17 Some districts can’t pass an election, which is required for any increase over $1.04.

18. Example: To Raise More Revenue  HISD Total Tax Rate$1.21  $1.04 Maintenance and Operations (M&O) .17 Debt Service  1 cent tax increase yields $180K  1% salary increase costs $400K  To Change M&O Tax Rate a Tax Ratification Election (TRE) is Required  It would take a 23 cent M&O Tax rate increase to offset $4.3 Million Reduction

19. What Now? Litigation and Legislation Litigation  A total of 5 lawsuits have been filed  4 of the 5 have been combined into one suit  Case will be tried in Travis Count Court by Judge Dietz…same judge as West Orange-Cove case

20. What Will They Argue? That the Cap of $1.17 M&O Tax is in essence a State Wide Property Tax That the level of funding is Inadequate That Target Revenue is Irrational That the current system is Inequitable That the current system is unfair to Taxpayers

21. What Now? Legislation Revise Current Funding System Health care will be “driving the bus” in the next session Politics will come to play since roughly 50% of the House will be freshmen or sophomores New Education Committee Chairs in both houses

22. So What Do We Do?  Keep on providing a quality education for all children;  Adjust our expenditures to match our revenue…but not without some pain in doing so;  Continue to work with our elected officials to seek common ground on funding for public schools; and  Become actively involved in the quest to find responsible solutions to a very complex problem

23. What Does All This Mean to My Ag Science Program?

24. From an Administrator’s View What is the view of the typical school administrator towards Ag Science and other elective programs? –Limited knowledge –Limited understanding –Consider cost first, benefit second –Numbers, numbers, numbers

25. From an Administrator’s View Requesting Budget Increases in Any Form (supplies, equipment, staff, etc) –First, know your current budget –Second, understand the budget development process in the district –Third, know source of funds (state, federal, local, activity, etc) –Fourth, know cost per pupil (this is where numbers help)

26. From an Administrator’s View Budgetary Changes….must be justified –Explain reason why current budget is not sufficient –Explain how increase will result in improvement of the program –Explain how increase will be sufficient for a specified period of time…avoid repeated requests for increase

27. From an Administrator’s View Building Relationships with Administrators –Involve them in all activities as possible –Keep them fully informed (even if it hurts) –Be visible on the campus –Be visible at school events –Volunteer to serve on campus and district committees –Conduct a QUALITY program

28. Do’s and Don’ts DO Be actively involved with elected representatives Be a team player on the campus and in the district Understand the budget process in your district Conduct a quality program Be realistic in budget requests Don’ts Whine Don’t compare your program with other programs on campus Sit back and depend on others to work with elected representatives Expect increases in funding if numbers are declining in your program

29. From an Administrator’s View Most Common Complaints Heard 1.I only wish they would clean up that mess around their building. 2.It is a constant battle to get students to adhere to school rules and the ag teachers are no help. 3.Wish our ag teacher would be more communicative. 4.I am not sure why every purchase request is an emergency with our ag teachers.

30. The Bottom Line Don’t expect huge changes in funding from the 83 rd Legislature Work to provide quality programming in spite of funding or lack of Be a LEADER, not a WHINER