Texas v. California education spending

Someone forward this piece to me so I do not know who is to receive the credit; however, the numbers are staggering.

"As it turns out Texas has more public school employees than any state in the nation. California has 1.6 million more students than Texas, but has 1,225 fewer schools, and a jaw-dropping 52,090 fewer total education personnel. While we would hope that most of our public school employees would consist of those folks who actually teach, only 51% of Texas public education employees are teachers.

Even more astounding is the fact that total Texas public school expenditures have increased 335% since 1987. While we would hope that such vast increases in spending would improve student performance, an examination of the NAEP (National Assessment for Educational Progress) results reveal that Texas student test scores have remained stagnant or have actually decreased during this period.

Many Texas school districts are claiming they will have to close schools due to budget cuts, and yes, some probably will. However, many of these districts, and the state education industry as a whole, have not applied their respective budgets appropriately. Cutting amounts of state spending on education will force closer examination of how those 'education' dollars are spent. In so doing, we need to remember that our public education system does not exist to provide jobs and pensions for all comers, but was established to provide educational opportunities to all children."

The government created the pain for education

Remember the stimulus? It is coming back to cause problems with education funding issues. It appears that schools used stimulus funds over the past couple of years to shore-up financial short falls that should have appeared over the past two years in school budgets. ISDs used the stimulus funds to pay for educational improvements, such as summer school programs and HIRING more teachers.

Guess many ISDs failed to read the fine print with regards to the federal stimulus funds having an expiration date. Yes, the funds came with an expiration date! One wonders if school administrators informed these newly hired teachers that the job may not be permanent since the position was subject to continued federal stimulus funding.

Funds do run out from time to time! Most likely every school district in this state can find a way to keep the certified teachers employed and on the payrolls. However, some sports programs and coaches may have to be reassigned, removed from the payrolls, etc.

Priority spending is the name of the game. Do they provide a TAKS exam for football, basketball, cheer leading, golf, tennis, band, etc.?

Lil' more on the education spending front

Per an article in the Dallas Morning News Superintendent Michael Hinojosa stated that the majority of the DISD budget is payroll costs. Payroll costs for the DISD is a LARGE amount of the budget, 82 percent. I would hope that the payroll cost numbers include items like insurance, sick pay, retirement contributions, etc. If not then how does the DISD pay the utility bills?

You have heard many rumors about budget reductions from school districts. Each public school district is independent, and each district is in a very different financial position and manages decision-making differently. Do not assume what you hear about other districts is relevant to all school districts.

You will hear about proposed reductions at the state level and proposed legislative action that may impact schools. At the state level nothing is final until it has been through several rounds of sub-committee and committee hearings, and considered by the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Governor.

Don't believe anyone from either side at this point as to what will be the final outcome, for no one knows at this point and June is a few months out.

Use the Ronald Reagan method of 'trust but verify'.

Full of hot air

All teachers in the State of Texas should be good fans of the bosses who lead them down the education pathways within each of their school districts. Be willing to bet that most school boards think they have winners in the Super seats as well.

Interesting that these Super Leaders have been down to Austin to testify before the various committees on education that they want have enough money to conduct the business of education if the legislature decides to cut the education funding over the next two years. They have been filling the room with 'hot air' about how the school districts in Texas will have to lay-off teachers, decrease pay for current teachers, furlough personnel, etc. in order to meet the financial requirements of the education system.

After reviewing some of the testimony and reading the various metro daily papers is it not odd that a single Super Leader has suggested that perhaps I the Super Leader need to cut my pay instead of the drastic measures of laying-off, etc. Must be some of that personal greed coming out from within the Super Leaders. It is also interesting to note that not one Super Leader has suggested that the local districts are a little heavy in the 'middle' management area, i.e. assistant principals, curriculum directors, department heads, district communication officer, student development staff, etc.

This piece from Empower Texans is timely:

http://www.empowertexans.com/issues/superintendent_salaries_are_a_statewide_problem

Superintendent Salaries Are A Statewide Problem provides some very insightful issues with regards to how Super Leaders have chosen the route of personal greed, and school boards have allowed the greed to be common within the education system.

Folks, it is your money that is being used to create and cause such a problem. Let the folks in Austin know that your pocketbook is short on funds and you don't have the luxury of a greed problem. The teachers need to revolt and demand that some of those Super Leader funds come their way in place of taking a reduction in pay. After all is the money not better spent on those who actually do the work?

Your Super Leaders are filling you full of 'hot air'!

Crying over spilled milk

They raised taxes to build the lavish football stadium, but are now considering cutting teachers due to a budget shortfall. Education does not have a priority problem...................

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/sports/30allen.html

Harry Reid: Obama Should 'Back Off' on Earmark Ban

Obama appears to have heard the people; however, Senator Reid still sees no issue with earmarks. Matter of fact he stated that earmarks will not increase government spending. In his 'little' brain he believes earmarks are a fine way to spend taxpayer funds. He fails to get that if you stop spending period then maybe you might be able to stop the runaway train. The folks in Nevada have a real winner speaking on their behalf.

"President Obama stressed earmark elimination in his State of the Union address Tuesday night, but the message didn't hit home with one of his closest allies, Harry Reid.

In an interview with "NBC Nightly News," the Senate majority leader said Obama should "back off" on the idea.

Reid called Obama's statement that he would veto any legislation sent to him with earmarks included an "applause line" and "absolutely wrong. . . . The president has enough power; he should back off and let us do what we do.

"Specifically, that means he and other lawmakers "have a constitutional obligation to do congressionally directed spending. I know much more about what's needed in Elko, Nevada . . . than some bureaucrat back" in Washington. "Short term, [the president] may win this battle, but it's going to be short term. This is a line he's been flinging out for a long time. It means nothing to [reduce] the debt."

The Nevada Democrat said banning earmarks doesn't save the cash-strapped government money because the funds will be spent regardless -- earmarks simply direct them.

He also said opposing the president won't cause a rift between himself and a political ally. "He's been around a while, I've been around a while. Just because he's wrong on this doesn't mean he's not right on most everything else. . . . Banning earmarks hurts people who are in need, whether it's a university, a city, a struggling business of some kind. These are the kinds of things that we are obligated to try to help. . . We have three branches of government, and I don't want the executive branch messing with my territory." "

Tom Kavanagh
Morning Editor - Politics Daily AOL