This blog on Texas education contains posts on accountability, testing, K-12 education, postsecondary educational attainment, dropouts, bilingual education, immigration, school finance, environmental issues, Ethnic Studies at state and national levels. It also represents my digital footprint, of life and career, as a community-engaged scholar in the College of Education at the University of Texas at Austin.
Friday, June 12, 2015
Fast-growing Texas school districts lament double whammy
Not a good situation for the more than 30 high-growth districts:
Of the $1.5 billion extra public education funding included in the
2016-17 budget, only $103 million is for campus construction — about how
much it would cost to build one high-end high school.
We are jeopardizing so many children's futures as a consequence.
In
the wake of this year’s legislative session, officials from
fast-growing Central Texas school districts are invoking visions of
extremely overcrowded classrooms and endless rows of portable buildings
while criticizing state lawmakers for what they see as a continued
dismissal of local control.
They are lamenting yet another failed
attempt to get the Legislature to allow at least some of the districts
to exceed a state limit on debt service so they can build more schools
to house an influx of new students — and are complaining of a double
whammy of sorts.
Students at Jack C. Hays High School make their way to the first class of the day on Dec. 18. Hays ... read more
While state lawmakers overwhelmingly rejected a bill that would have
given districts more latitude to exceed that cap, they almost
unanimously passed another that all but prohibits a controversial form
of borrowing many districts have employed to avoid busting the cap.
As the state population has boomed and public education funding has
dwindled, the number of districts statewide that have hit that
50-cent-per-$100-valuation tax rate limit – set in 1991 – has grown from
zero in 2003 to more than 30 in recent years.
School officials describe the cap as both arbitrary and unnecessary
given that they still are required to win approval from local voters
before building additional campuses.
The problem is particularly prominent in areas such as Liberty Hill
in Williamson County where there is more residential growth than
commercial development, which brings more tax value, and growth is
outpacing finances. In that tiny but growing town, the lone school
district desperately needs an elementary school, but it can’t ask voters
to pay for one because its debt service tax rate is already at 49
cents.
Of all the issues facing the district, “it’s one that keeps me up at
night more than anything else,” said Superintendent Rob Hart. “We’re
getting very crowded.”
An unsuccessful bill by state Rep. Eddie Rodriguez, D-Austin, would
have allowed Liberty Hill and more than a dozen other school districts
that have hit or are nearing the debt service limit to exceed it by 10
cents as long as they met certain criteria, including demonstrating that
it would save them money on interest in the long run. (Many districts
have chosen longer-term bonds, which helps them stay below the cap but
can result in millions more dollars in interest payments).
The measure was a much watered-down version of legislation that has failed before.
“Let us untie the hands of fast-growth districts,” Rodriguez said last month before the House overwhelmingly rejected his House Bill 506. A similar Senate bill by Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, D-McAllen, never even got a public hearing in committee.
Meanwhile, the Legislature overwhelmingly approved a bill that will —
if it escapes a gubernatorial veto — prohibit school districts from
using controversial capital appreciation bonds to build schools,
something districts like Leander’s have done to skirt the debt limit.
The controversial bonds delay payments for decades and can end up
costing districts tens of times as much as they originally borrowed.
State Rep. Dan Flynn, author of House Bill 114,
emphasized the state — through its Bond Guarantee Program — is on the
hook for all bonds issued by school districts and charter schools and
might have already overcommitted itself.
“We have a concern there that we’ve actually guaranteed more than we
have funds for,” the Canton Republican said at a March public hearing.
“I think we have a responsibility to be sure that this is brought to the
public’s view.”
The Fast Growth School Coalition ended up supporting Flynn’s bill in
lieu of another — carried by Hinojosa in the Senate — that would’ve
banned the use of the bonds entirely. The group advocates for about 85
districts that are taking on the vast majority of new student
enrollment.
Still, coalition Executive Director Michelle Smith said some
districts now are “faced with the reality of being at almost 50 cents
and not being able to use more (capital appreciation bonds), and the
kids are still coming.”
“I don’t see anybody really talking about solutions … as to where
they’re going to put these new kids in the next 10 to 15 years if
they’re not able to build anymore,” she said. “Either the state can
provide support for facilities or local taxpayers can provide support
for facilities.”
Smith noted that state lawmakers did increase facilities funding this session, albeit modestly.
Of the $1.5 billion extra public education funding included in the
2016-17 budget, only $103 million is for campus construction — about how
much it would cost to build one high-end high school.
Michael McKie, superintendent of the Hays Consolidated Independent
School District, sees the whole situation as an attack on local control.
“Because (House Bill) 506 didn’t pass what it does is it doesn’t
allow your local communities, your citizens of your local ISDs to make a
local decision regarding, one, the amount of debt they want to acquire
and, two, whether or not to approve a bond,” he said. “We have to be
accountable to our school communities — every ISD does.”
McKie admitted the situation is forcing his district — also close to
the 50-cent limit — to focus more than ever on paying down its existing
debt so it may eventually build another elementary and high school. But
he said the district would have been doing that, anyway.
“We wouldn’t have philosophically changed anything,” he said. “On the
flip side, if your growth is exceeding your financial capacity because
of the amount of debt you’re having to take on because of growth — then
what?”
No comments:
Post a Comment