In Lege news, the House's proposed version of school vouchers has some differences with the Senate's already-passed bills, including tying voucher funding explicitly to public school funding levels.
Under HB 3, most participating students would receive an amount equal to 85% of what public schools get for each student through state and local funding. That feature is a key difference from the Senate plan, which would provide a set amount of $10,000 to most participating students.
Under the assumption that some sort of voucher bill will pass, I think this is not only good fiscal stewardship but smart management in general. The Senate will officially wear the "anti-public schools" collar if it rejects this. Odds that happens, though? I would still put it at 50-50.
That said, state Rep. Brad Buckley, who authored the House's vouchers bill, could have made the increase in aid to public schools more than the $200 per student he actually did. That's just 3 percent, far below total inflation of the past two years and compounded by the old level itself being inadequate.
This:
Rep. James Talarico of Austin, who is leading House Democrats’ efforts to stop the voucher bill, said the school finance proposal is “wholly inadequate” and does not bring state funding back to the levels of a landmark 2019 education bill when adjusting for inflation. That year, lawmakers increased schools’ base state funding by $1,020 compared to this year’s proposal which would increase it by $220.
Is totally correct.
Can Salado and his jefe, Speaker Dustin Burrows, carry a vouchers bill that doesn't increase public school money more, or will more rural Republicans join 2023 special session flip-floppers like David Spiller?
Buckley also dropped HB 4, calling for an overhaul of STAAR. It's noteworthy that the Texas Senate has passed no such bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment