TexasCHLforum.com

The demographers, fiscally irresponsible school administrators, and people who use fear mongering and puppy dog eyes while claiming "it's for the good of the children" should take into consideration that fancy technology and opulent sports facilities (bought on credit) is the exact opposite message I want my kids to learn. I see so much waste and money mismanagement occurring in our school systems, it is a no brainer when a bond issue comes to the table. I read about the yearly cries of funding crisis ( usually while eating a few cookies made from the inflated fundraiser dough I coughed up $20 for) and stand perplexed at what the heck my kiddos will do if they don't get the opportunity to play on Astoturf instead of grass next year.

Skiprr wrote:

n5wd wrote:That's an awfully broad paint brush you're using, TAM, and one that, IMHO, isn't justified in the cases that I am familiar with.

Bond issues are how the only way that some entities, such as school districts, are able to expand and grow their facilities in advance of increasing populations such as is happening in most counties in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.

Where are these increasing populations coming from?

California, Nevada, Oregon, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Puerto Rico, Guam, Florida - some of the states represented by new kids in my classes this year. Also, The Congo, Djibouti, and South Africa. Folks are coming to Texas from all over, didn't you know?

Skiprr wrote:Do the DFW school districts require citizenship documentation?

If they do, they're in violation of federal law. I suspect they don't - I know of the district I work for, and the district my wife works for, neither one require citizenship documentation. Federal law prohibits schools from discriminating upon school children based upon their or their parents / guardians immigration status. Like it or not, that's the established federal law (for something like 20 years, now).

Skiprr wrote: Do the parents of those students pay taxes?

Most likely - just like you and me. They pay sales tax on everything they spend, they pay a portion of the ad-velorum taxes in their rent payments or with their mortgage payments, and they pay federal income taxes just like you and me (because the employer deducts them before they get to see their pay check). If they're paid "off the books", just like you and me if we were, we'd all avoid the income tax portion, but pay everything else. They also pay their car registration tax, just like you and me. So?

Skiprr wrote:I have no children, yet I pay over $5,000 each year in school district taxes simply because I own a home.

Yep, you do. That's the way the legislators in our state decided that the state was going to pay for such things as schools, hospital taxes, junior college districts, municipal water districts, emergency service districts, county taxes, etc. If you don't like the way the legislators (both the Republican majority that Texas has had for a couple of decades, and the Democrat minority, then change the legislature.

Skiprr wrote:My neighbor across the street has four children attending public school. He pays exactly the same property tax that I do.

What's wrong with this picture?

Nothing except you don't want to pay your fair share of having an educated workforce in your area to fix your car, sack your groceries, build you a new house, fix the airplanes you fly on, take care of your medical needs at the doctor's offices, etc. We ALL benefit from having an informed, educated workforce in our area - just like we ALL benefit from good public roads, regardless of whether we own a car or not. But, a lot of folks think that if they don't use something that day, they shouldn't pay for it.

Called a cop lately? How about a fire truck? Been to the county hospital? Gone to a city library? Taken a course at your local junior college? Probably not, but you pay for those each day as well as you do the school taxes.

n5wd wrote:That's an awfully broad paint brush you're using, TAM, and one that, IMHO, isn't justified in the cases that I am familiar with.

Bond issues are how the only way that some entities, such as school districts, are able to expand and grow their facilities in advance of increasing populations such as is happening in most counties in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.

Skiprr wrote:Where are these increasing populations coming from?

California, Nevada, Oregon, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Puerto Rico, Guam, Florida - some of the states represented by new kids in my classes this year. Also, The Congo, Djibouti, and South Africa. Folks are coming to Texas from all over, didn't you know?

Skiprr wrote:Do the DFW school districts require citizenship documentation?

If they do, they're in violation of federal law. I suspect they don't - I know of the district I work for, and the district my wife works for, neither one require citizenship documentation. Federal law prohibits schools from discriminating upon school children based upon their or their parents / guardians immigration status. Like it or not, that's the established federal law (for something like 20 years, now).

Skiprr wrote: Do the parents of those students pay taxes?

Most likely - just like you and me. They pay sales tax on everything they spend, they pay a portion of the ad-velorum taxes in their rent payments or with their mortgage payments, and they pay federal income taxes just like you and me (because the employer deducts them before they get to see their pay check). If they're paid "off the books", just like you and me if we were, we'd all avoid the income tax portion, but pay everything else. They also pay their car registration tax, just like you and me. So?

Skiprr wrote:I have no children, yet I pay over $5,000 each year in school district taxes simply because I own a home.

Yep, you do. That's the way the legislators in our state decided that the state was going to pay for such things as schools, hospital taxes, junior college districts, municipal water districts, emergency service districts, county taxes, etc. If you don't like the way the legislators (both the Republican majority that Texas has had for a couple of decades, and the Democrat minority) have done it, then change the legislature. I know I'm trying to do that - what about you?

Skiprr wrote:My neighbor across the street has four children attending public school. He pays exactly the same property tax that I do.

What's wrong with this picture?

Nothing except you don't want to pay your fair share of having an educated workforce in your area to fix your car, sack your groceries, build you a new house, fix the airplanes you fly on, take care of your medical needs at the doctor's offices, etc. We ALL benefit from having an informed, educated workforce in our area - just like we ALL benefit from good public roads, regardless of whether we own a car or not. But, a lot of folks think that if they don't use something that day, they shouldn't pay for it.

Called a cop lately? How about a fire truck? Been to the county hospital? Gone to a city library? Taken a course at your local junior college? Probably not, but you pay for those each day as well as you do the school taxes.

apostate wrote:If landlords were making tax payments on behalf of their tenants, no property taxes would be owed when the house is vacant. However, that is not the case. The property owner pays the same property taxes whether or not they have a tenant. Therefore, it's clearly inaccurate to say landlords are making tax payments on behalf of their (perhaps nonexistent) tenants.

My point was that the tenants are, in effect, paying taxes.

That's an awfully broad paint brush you're using, TAM, and one that, IMHO, isn't justified in the cases that I am familiar with.

Bond issues are how the only way that some entities, such as school districts, are able to expand and grow their facilities in advance of increasing populations such as is happening in most counties in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. When the demographers say that a district's population is going to grow by X percentage in the next 10 years, that gives a district some time to begin planning for the new population's needs.... and a bond is exactly how they pay for that new expansion. Without the bond, kids get crammed into schools that weren't made for that many kids, new technology doesn't get implemented districtwide, basically the district is left to try to to and accommodate the expansion needs as best they can in their operating budget, meaning all those temporary buildings that everyone (cough, cough) loves to be in. And then they have to go back to the voters and ask for a tax rate increase, which no one likes, either. Bond packages are much more transparent, as the bond expenditures have to be accounted for separately, and it becomes quickly obvious in the public records when things are not being taken care of as advertised.

The district I work for as done everything they told the voters they would do, built the schools and the new football stadium, installed the new technology (such as digital projectors in every classroom in the middle and high schools), and have come in under budget each time.

So, if you're just voting down a bond package because you don't believe in them, you're doing the same thing as a voter does when they select a straight ticket on principles - you're overlooking the things that a bond package can provide for the people that the bond is designed to serve without even known if the need is there. Yeah, I'm sure there may have been a whole lot of jurisdictions that have had bad packages, but on the whole, I think you'll find, at least here in the DFW metroplex, that most school bond packages are well run and serve a definite need or public desire.

I can't write as well as Michael Quinn Sullivan so I'll just post a link.
http://www.empowertexans.com/features/i ... r-schools/
I agree with him 100%. Our Public School spending continues to rise while the results continue to go down. While I believe that a lot of the decline can be attributed to single parent families, throwing money at the problem has simply not produced results. I am a backer of vouchering and believe it to be a far better solution to the problem. YMMV

Larry

n5wd wrote:...Folks are coming to Texas from all over, didn't you know?

...Like it or not, that's the established federal law (for something like 20 years, now).

...If they're paid "off the books", just like you and me if we were, we'd all avoid the income tax portion, but pay everything else. They also pay their car registration tax, just like you and me. So?

...Called a cop lately? How about a fire truck? Been to the county hospital? Gone to a city library? Taken a course at your local junior college? Probably not, but you pay for those each day as well as you do the school taxes.

Wow. Been watching the debates much?

No, we don't have a standard "irony" emoticon, so I didn't insert one. But still...

n5wd wrote:Folks are coming to Texas from all over, didn't you know?

No kidding? Really?

And public school districts are not allowed under federal law to confirm citizenship of students? Really?

Shocking.

By your professional estimation, what percentage of students currently enrolled in Texas public schools might be illegal aliens? What percentage of non-citizen students are benefiting from the school district taxes we pay?

n5wd wrote:If they're paid "off the books", just like you and me if we were, we'd all avoid the income tax portion, but pay everything else.

Really?

Did you mistype or are you serious?

I have been paid before "off the books" (i.e., in cash) for services performed, and I have always reported that income as required under federal law.

Are you saying you would misreport your federal income taxes?

n5wd wrote:If you don't like the way the legislators (both the Republican majority that Texas has had for a couple of decades, and the Democrat minority) have done it, then change the legislature. I know I'm trying to do that - what about you?

Very actively, my friend. Though probably not in the direction you might prefer.

n5wd wrote:Called a cop lately? How about a fire truck? Been to the county hospital?...you pay for those each day as well as you do the school taxes.

Here's the kicker: Do you even own a home and pay Texas property taxes? Because if you do, you know you receive separate and distinct invoices for your property taxes. YMMV by county.

I receive three invoices. One is from Harris County. Its levy is the lowest of the three. This is the tax that pays my fair share for law enforcement, fire and 911 response, and any county-provided emergency medical care. Has nothing to do with my school-district taxes.

Another invoice is from the Metropolitan Utility District in which I live. This is the second-lowest cost of my three taxes. I still have to pay monthly for water and waste pick-up, but at least these are services that I use.

The third tax invoice I receive is from the Cy-Fair school district. It is the largest of the three property tax bills I receive each year. I pay more property tax to the school district than I do to either the county or to the utility district.

If a family living in a single home opts to berth four or five children and place them into public schools on the public doll, why is it my responsibility--as a semi-retired childless widower--to contribute thousands each and every year to support them?

All while the school districts spend the tax money to build football stadiums that rival something that Baylor might envision.

When the school district learns to use my considerable annual contribution responsibly--and it has never proven that capability during the past decade--I may vote for a school bond.

I am a 1 issue voter too but the 1 issue is different for Texas and National elections. In Texas, I'm not voting for anybody this year who didn't vote for Campus Carry last year. In the National elections, I'm not voting for anybody who voted for Obamacare. I'm including Obama's signature as a vote.

Locally I'm also voting against piling on more debt during an economic downtown. The Greek Festival was fun but that doesn't mean we should follow their economic example.

MolonLabe wrote:The demographers, fiscally irresponsible school administrators, and people who use fear mongering and puppy dog eyes while claiming "it's for the good of the children" should take into consideration that fancy technology and opulent sports facilities (bought on credit) is the exact opposite message I want my kids to learn. I see so much waste and money mismanagement occurring in our school systems, it is a no brainer when a bond issue comes to the table. I read about the yearly cries of funding crisis ( usually while eating a few cookies made from the inflated fundraiser dough I coughed up $20 for) and stand perplexed at what the heck my kiddos will do if they don't get the opportunity to play on Astoturf instead of grass next year.

I wonder if these elaborate opulent sports facilities that many school districts have in Texas pay for themselves, through ticket sales etc. Does anyone know the figures? If so, what the hey? If not, then maybe some pencil sharpening is in order.

I think we would be much better off if the public schools were closed, and a voucher given to the parents of school aged children. These funds would be in an amount equal throughout the state. The parents would then be able to select whatever educational opportunities they thought best for their children. Providers would spring into existence, to offer courses of study demanded by parents. Good teachers would be hired to work in these providers; not so good ones would, well, seek other opportunities. These private operators could run things without the political nonsense that we hear so much bickering about at board meetings, students would have to meet the operators standards or go elsewhere, in attendance, dress, deportment, academics and every other way. Some will charge more than the state voucher; parents can pay the extra if they think its worth it. Some operators might earn such a reputation that the schools would offer scholarships to particularly academically attractive students.

I don't know what would happen to all those fancy stadiums though.

the stadiums are public property, allow the private schools to use the stadiums for phys ed during a certain time for free, if they want to have games and sell tix, then they must give a portion to the city?

JALLEN wrote:

MolonLabe wrote:The demographers, fiscally irresponsible school administrators, and people who use fear mongering and puppy dog eyes while claiming "it's for the good of the children" should take into consideration that fancy technology and opulent sports facilities (bought on credit) is the exact opposite message I want my kids to learn. I see so much waste and money mismanagement occurring in our school systems, it is a no brainer when a bond issue comes to the table. I read about the yearly cries of funding crisis ( usually while eating a few cookies made from the inflated fundraiser dough I coughed up $20 for) and stand perplexed at what the heck my kiddos will do if they don't get the opportunity to play on Astoturf instead of grass next year.

I wonder if these elaborate opulent sports facilities that many school districts have in Texas pay for themselves, through ticket sales etc. Does anyone know the figures? If so, what the hey? If not, then maybe some pencil sharpening is in order.

I think we would be much better off if the public schools were closed, and a voucher given to the parents of school aged children. These funds would be in an amount equal throughout the state. The parents would then be able to select whatever educational opportunities they thought best for their children. Providers would spring into existence, to offer courses of study demanded by parents. Good teachers would be hired to work in these providers; not so good ones would, well, seek other opportunities. These private operators could run things without the political nonsense that we hear so much bickering about at board meetings, students would have to meet the operators standards or go elsewhere, in attendance, dress, deportment, academics and every other way. Some will charge more than the state voucher; parents can pay the extra if they think its worth it. Some operators might earn such a reputation that the schools would offer scholarships to particularly academically attractive students.

I don't know what would happen to all those fancy stadiums though.

That would be okay if they got the money through ticket sales ect. and saved it to build whatever kind of stadium they wanted. (IMO)
There is absolutely NO REASON these high schools need these elaborate stadiums, like the $60 million one they just built in Allen.
.

jocat54 wrote:
That would be okay if they got the money through ticket sales ect. and saved it to build whatever kind of stadium they wanted. (IMO)
There is absolutely NO REASON these high schools need these elaborate stadiums, like the $60 million one they just built in Allen.
.

I'd be OK if it was done on a business like basis. Texas is football country, they've built up a good product, people will come out spend money, insist on it really, the high school bands put on good shows, lots of kids involved.

I hear that my old high school has 9, count 'em, 9 assistant band directors, and 300 kids in the band, and they put on a pretty good show, too. The football and band programs here are PATHETIC. I did not go to a single game when my sons were in high school, and the Coronado HS band had 24 members in it when I was asked to help out at homecoming and sit in on tuba. Pretty sad!

Anyway, they can take the tickets sales, refreshment stands etc., figure out how to pay for it all, get a construction budget and a bond issue, then pay for it out of revenue generated by the facility, and that is great. The programs for the kids are very beneficial. If it comes out of tax payer funds, then that's not so good

Well, back to the original topic -- I voted yesterday Tom. :)

JALLEN wrote:I think we would be much better off if the public schools were closed, and parents home schooled or paid their own money for a third party to do the job. The parents would then be able to select whatever educational opportunities they thought best for their children. Providers would spring into existence, to offer courses of study demanded by parents. Good teachers would be hired to work in these providers; not so good ones would, well, seek other opportunities. These private operators could run things without the political nonsense that we hear so much bickering about at board meetings, students would have to meet the operators standards or go elsewhere, in attendance, dress, deportment, academics and every other way.

FYP

smoothoperator wrote:

JALLEN wrote:I think we would be much better off if the public schools were closed, and parents home schooled or paid their own money for a third party to do the job.

FYP

That is a great plan, for creating a permanent underclass composed of those who cannot read or write. Then you would have a upper crust of the underclass, folks who can read/write but have no real knowledge beyond that (math, science, history). Eventually we could get back to the time when a noble class would spring up to rule us all.

If that sounds like a good plan it is only because you believe that you and your family would be part of the nobility. Good luck with that.

are you saying that my children and their friends have no knowledge beyond math, science or history? huh, so....you're saying government schooled kids know math, science and history and more????? OK....

ok....

I'm not going to get into it, I"m not going to get into it, I'm not....