The apparently well-organized effort to convince Texas voters that hundreds of "independent" school districts statewide should be forced into a one-size-fits-all straightjacket continued today with the publication of an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle.
Peggy M. Venable and her political pressure group contend that this "tough pill" is needed to rein in rampant waste in schools.
While education lobbyists clamored for as much as $6 billion to $8 billion more in education funding, the citizen group Americans for Prosperity in Texas believes that more money won't fix the problem. One symptom of the system's problems is fiscal mismanagement of existing education dollars.Even the school finance lawsuit currently before the Texas Supreme Court has left taxpayers questioning how our education dollars are being spent. While school districts are using millions of tax dollars to sue the state for more tax dollars, the court heard that Socorro Independent School District justified a waterslide by claiming it lowered dropout rates.
SISD is a good example of misguided spending priorities. In addition to a waterslide, it has as many nonteaching staff as teachers and its "acceptable" academic rating isn't really acceptable to parents and taxpayers.
When is a waterslide considered to be educational? When it teaches us how education dollars are being wasted. And while property taxes are escalating, this is no time for public schools to be squandering dollars.
Their "simple concept" sounds very appealing, initially.
The reform students, teachers and taxpayers need is "the 65 percent solution."This simple concept directs 65 percent of the existing education spending into the classroom, which includes all credit courses and enrichment programs.
The move from 60.4 percent to 65 percent seems like small change. How much difference can 4.6 cents make? This small change will add up to big change in our schools. It would put $1.6 billion more a year into Texas classrooms without a tax increase.
The initiative has tremendous support. Polling found 77.5 percent of Texans surveyed support the 65 percent requirement on school districts; 91 percent support it after learning it would put an additional $1.6 billion into Texas classrooms without a tax increase; and 89 percent said they were more likely to support a candidate that supported the 65 percent requirement.
A survey by the Tower Institute conducted in January found 63 percent would consider increasing the percentage of money spent in the classroom, without any additional dollars added to the system, to be an increase in public education spending.
Did their surveys tell taxpayers that the 65 percent "solution" won't pay for nurses, guidance counselors, speech therapists, school libraries, buses for rural students, or preventive maintenance on school facilities?
We yield to no one in opposing wasteful spending by school districts or any other public institution. Waste is rampant and should be battled. But applying a single standard to school districts that face wildly varying needs and priorities is pointless, if the intent is truly to improve education. Of course, it's quite logical if the point is to simply starve government at every level of tax revenues, regardless of the consequences.
Wouldn't it be better to keep control of our school districts where it belongs: in the hands of local voters, taxpayers, and parents? Better disclosure and more true grassroots involvement would be much better for all our kids.
While we ponder these weighty questions, it's useful to know more about the participants in the debate. What is the self-described "citizen group" Americans for Prosperity, battling waste and excessive spending?
Americans For Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) is a nationwide organization of citizen leaders committed to advancing every individual’s right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFPF believes reducing the size and scope of government is the best safeguard to ensuring individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFPF educates and engages citizens in support of restraining state and federal government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits.
As a tax-exempt 501(c)(3), AFPF is required to file disclosure statements with the IRS, which can then be analyzed. What kind of role model are they for fiscal prudence?
Watchdog site Charity Navigator gives APFP an overall rating of 30.12 out of 70, or one star on a 0-4 scale. Their "efficiency rating" is 20.12 out of 40, or zero stars. They spend 40.9% of their funds on "administration" and "fund raising." In other words, they don't spend 65% of their own money on their mission.
That's educational.
Posted by Alan at August 24, 2005 10:29 PM