And The Texas Budget Cuts Cometh

[Harry]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/19/AR2011011900050.html

[Censored by Laurie]

seitiroirP

[GrayEagle]

It's especially unfortunate for us as we are just beginning our ascent from the bottom-feeders of the FBS.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Our federal government is in such deep caca that we are in serious danger of no longer being the universal currency. When our money is no longer accepted because of our huge debt it will create either runaway inflation or a deep depression, depending on how we choose to deal with it.

Either will cause a drop in student enrollment because the money just won't be there for the student loans.

Moreover, federal government spending usually forces the states to pay for it so that they have to cut their own expenditures to pay for federal demands. One of the easiest ways to do that is to cut college-level spending.

I appreciate that Lane Rawlins accepted the permanent presidency of UNT knowing that funding was going to be cut and our need to cover increasing expenditures for research and athletics.

But, it could be worse. Next year tuition, books, room and board at SMU will be a whopping $52,000.

[Shuke-D]

seitiroirP

Bassackwards?

[MeanGreenTeeth]

I'm surprised closing down TWU or merging it with UNT has not come up. It seems highly inefficient to have two major state universities in Denton.

[KRAM1]

I'm surprised closing down TWU or merging it with UNT has not come up. It seems highly inefficient to have two major state universities in Denton.

It has come up countless numbers of times. Obviously, TWU will do everything in its power to see that it does not happen. At one point, NT was not too keen on the idea either, but i don't know what the thinking is at this time. I would, from a tax dollar savings standpoint, like to see it happen and I think it has merit, but for Denton itself, i think it might be a bit of a shock. I cannot imagine what the good folks at TWU would think if it ever came anywhere near reality.

At one time there was a big push to do some "joint programs". Don't know what ever became of that idea either, except that i don't think it got very far. TWU always seems to cast a "worried eye" toward it's much larger neighbor across town. As if the "sleeping tiger" was just waiting to ponce. Not much cooperation can happen when that attitude prevails. But, can you really blame them? I can't.

Along these same lines...why not consider COUNTY School districts? Think of all the excess administrative staff and regulatory enforcement staff you could eliminate. Really...how many assistant superintendents does one school district need? Seriously!

[UNTflyer]

Well this is what happens when politicians promise to not raise taxes... the only alternative is to slash spending. Cutting higher education results in less revenue in the future. It's one area I believe in spending more money.

We can't have it both ways. We can't have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation and expect to provide pre-kindergarten and student grants for Freshman.

But I doubt it will end up this bad. These first budgets are usually the worst and there are compromises and fees will be raised, etc.

Edited January 22, 2011 by UNTflyer

[KRAM1]

Well this is what happens when politicians promise to not raise taxes... the only alternative is to slash spending. Cutting higher education results in less revenue in the future. It's one area I believe in spending more money.

We can't have it both ways. We can't have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation and expect to provide pre-kindergarten and student grants for Freshman.

But I doubt it will end up this bad. These first budgets are usually the worst and there are compromises and fees will be raised, etc.

When revenues decline most politicians only think in terms of raising taxes. That's because most politicians are lazy. We have thrown more and more money at public education in this state only to see minimum results...speaking mainly of public elementary through HS education here, not higher education. But, anyone anywhere near any college campus of a public nature can tell you that the administrative staff continues to increase exponetionally. The are are more and more VP's and Ass't VP's being created monthly on many campuses along with all the support staff and expenses that go along with those positions. In addition, check out all the state owned vehicles of all kinds, take a look at some of the "external" programs offered (are they carrying their weight from a financial standpoint?), check out a good bit of the travel by both faculty, and administrative staffs (and the type of travel...1st class plane flights by some administrators in the past). There are plenty of areas to look at to "cut" spending in the state before you even think of raising taxes...these cuts could take place withoutout lessening the amount or quality of education provided. Raising taxes is the politician "easy way out" of not having to make the tough decisions. How many programs within public education in Texas have become defacto entitlement programs?

How about reducing the number of school districts in the state? What about looking at all the various extracurricular activities offered? Maybe it is time to consider a small fee to those who participate in those extracurricular activities so the entire population does not have to see taxes raised in order to keep providing things that are not actually required to provide a very high quality public educational system.

It really is time to think outside the box...would adding 2-3 kids to each class really effect the quality of education THAT much? Do we really need to provide "day care" in our public schools at taxpayer expense? Do we really need all those ESL classes and extra "catch-up" programs for folks who cannot (or will not) speak english? I am not advocating for one thing or another here, I am simply advocating for some creative "out-side the box" thinking with brainpower and not emotions. The "touchy-feely" stuff is part of what has gotten us in this budget mess in the first place.

I GUARANTEE you that if I were give complete authority I could definitely find enough cuts and "other" things that would make up the deficit without cutting programs that lead to quality education. I think most folks here could do the same.

[EagleD]

Rick Perry turned down Fed cash. In Austin there are small schools with exemplary records about to close. They are also about to slash music and arts. In my house and with my friends (full of efucators) this does not sit well.

Edited January 23, 2011 by EagleD

[KRAM1]

Rick Perry turned down Fed cash. In Austin there are small schools with exemplary records about to close. They are also about to slash music and arts. In my house and with my friends (full of efucators) this does not sit well.

No problem with him turning down Fed cash as it came with all kinds of strings attached as Fed cash ALWAYS does. It's not "free cash" to use as the state wishes.

Which small schools are about to close in Austin? Are they charter schools? Maybe they should combine resources. If they were THAT good it seems to me that they could get some "outside" financial support to stay open if they perhaps combined with others, cut some overhead and fixed costs, etc. I don't know as I am not aware of the schools or situations you are talking about. My house and family is full of educators as well, and none of us like that certain programs are on the chopping block, but maybe it is time to think "outside the box" and find ways to keep these programs going other than to simply take the easy way out and throw money at them. How about combining some between schools, how about looking for additional outside support, how about maybe doing some additional fund raising, how about checking numbers and seeing if the programs are more luxury in hard times than necessary and on and on and on. Also, the preliminary budget proposal may or may not be the final...maybe some additional work can save more of these programs. Many of these programs fall into the extracurricular program offerings, just like the sports programs, so maybe there needs to be a hard look taken in the schools as to which of all these extracurricular programs are the most beneficial. One might also look at all the dollars being spent on ESL and all the bilingual programs for children whose first language is not English. Can some bucks be saved in those areas that might help "save" some of the programs you mention?

Yes, throwing cash at it is a great band-aid that gets nowhere near the heart of the matter. Why not get really serious and do some really creative stuff and see what could really be done? Let's look at consolidating some school districts...seems to me that would save a bunch of tax dollars that now go to creating multiple administrations around the Austin area and across the state. Folks, there is not enough money and the people who are actually paying the taxes are getting tired of shelling out more and more for less and less results. More money is not the answer. More critical and creative thinking may well be.

[EagleD]

Curious b/c I don't know, what were the strings attached to the fed money? No child left behind was a GIANT federal mandate.

I honestly believe Perry's actions were politically motivated and not in the states best interest. If GWB had offered the same deal Perry would have taken it.

Bigger districts and classrooms are just the opposite of what we need. Ask any educator and they'll tell you smaller teacher to student ratio is critical to student achievement.

[Coffee and TV]

I didn't realize the state just threw wads of cash at schools and they blew it until Kram enlightened me. I seem to remember Texas ranking absolute dead last per capita in spending.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I didn't realize the state just threw wads of cash at schools and they blew it until Kram enlightened me. I seem to remember Texas ranking absolute dead last per capita in spending.

---We are 49th or 50th in state tax per capita. And our Govenor keeps wanting to cut them more.... [ Were yours cut?..example: sales tax or gasoline tax..which of yours was cut?]. Strayhorn [ State Comptroller at the time] warned us in 2005 that we would eventually be $20 billion in the red if the policies that being enacted by Perry and then Craddick (Speaker then) were followed. We now are.

--It is unfortunate but education and educators will suffer greatly from all of this. The state is even trying to close Odessa college [5000 students] which just passed 62 million in bonds and has a nursing program and areas needed for the oil industry out here. MC where I work will likely love 20-25% of their funding. Public schools are now in a real bind since state funding is already below 30% and not long ago it was 60%.

--- The guys in Austin may be conservative in many ways but financially conservative they aren't. Conservative to me is making good sound financial decisions and being able to pay debts and fund programs that NEED to be funded... ie. education. From 1870 to 2000 the other party controlled the legislature and this kind of shortfall NEVER happened... These guys are not what they claim to be.. Dewhurst may be the exception among the leadership. He has supported education and educators at times. He has beat back Perry several times on his efforts to "screw-up" TRS funds which funds retirement for retired teachers and those who will retire.

---Those in education need to do what they did in 1988 (Mark White--TECAT and crazy education reforms) and in 1980 (Dolph Briscoe --inflation with no salary adjustments) and throw these guys out --and get people in office that know what they are doing and don't just CLAIM to be Bible thunping conservatives, and supporting more tax cuts..( it works , they get elected).... they aren't what they claim to be....as our budget now shows.

--- Considering Texas has one of the best economies in the USA, this should not have happened..... oil prices are up and so is state revenue on University Lands, and sales tax is jumping back up as well. Schools, colleges, and those of us in education are going to suffer greatly because of these idiots...... a lot more than the general public will suffer. We would not have been in this big of a mess if Strayhorn or even Bell had defeated Perry in 2006.

____________________

Education, Highways and the criminal justice system are the huge items in the State budget... highways collect gasoline tax.... justice system is getting more expensive with more people in prisons and more drug use -- which leaves education to take the big hit...unfortunately. Cuts to education have been so severe since 2001 that it is hard to do much now. We are in a mess.... Don't just vote for people "who claim" to conservative... some are totally irresponsible when it comes to finances. I suppose my neighbor should be considered conservative... he cut back on going to work (income) ... ie. making money to pay his bills. . We get what we pay for ... and no more.

Edited January 25, 2011 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

No problem with him turning down Fed cash as it came with all kinds of strings attached as Fed cash ALWAYS does. It's not "free cash" to use as the state wishes.

Which small schools are about to close in Austin? Are they charter schools? Maybe they should combine resources. If they were THAT good it seems to me that they could get some "outside" financial support to stay open if they perhaps combined with others, cut some overhead and fixed costs, etc. I don't know as I am not aware of the schools or situations you are talking about. My house and family is full of educators as well, and none of us like that certain programs are on the chopping block, but maybe it is time to think "outside the box" and find ways to keep these programs going other than to simply take the easy way out and throw money at them. How about combining some between schools, how about looking for additional outside support, how about maybe doing some additional fund raising, how about checking numbers and seeing if the programs are more luxury in hard times than necessary and on and on and on. Also, the preliminary budget proposal may or may not be the final...maybe some additional work can save more of these programs. Many of these programs fall into the extracurricular program offerings, just like the sports programs, so maybe there needs to be a hard look taken in the schools as to which of all these extracurricular programs are the most beneficial. One might also look at all the dollars being spent on ESL and all the bilingual programs for children whose first language is not English. Can some bucks be saved in those areas that might help "save" some of the programs you mention?

Yes, throwing cash at it is a great band-aid that gets nowhere near the heart of the matter. Why not get really serious and do some really creative stuff and see what could really be done? Let's look at consolidating some school districts...seems to me that would save a bunch of tax dollars that now go to creating multiple administrations around the Austin area and across the state. Folks, there is not enough money and the people who are actually paying the taxes are getting tired of shelling out more and more for less and less results. More money is not the answer. More critical and creative thinking may well be.

---Obviously you don't work in education.... Most school districts are running very, very lean.... Don't be surprised to see non-revenue sports to start disappearing... tennis, golf, swimming, soccer, volleyball etc. Part of the reason you are paying more and more in local school taxes has to do with the state (especially under Perry) cutting more and more state funding... He bragged about cutting property tax rates which is rather phooney... most were asked to raise the evaluations so your local tax bill may now even be worse. He is not what he claims.... making huge school districts would be a mistake... big means more problems and removes visibilty of what is really happening... you don't want that.

Edited January 25, 2011 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[KRAM1]

---Obviously you don't work in education.... Most school districts are running very, very lean.... Don't be surprised to see non-revenue sports to start disappearing... tennis, golf, swimming, soccer, volleyball etc. Part of the reason you are paying more and more in local school taxes has to do with the state (especially under Perry) cutting more and more state funding... He bragged about cutting property tax rates which is rather phooney... most were asked to raise the evaluations so your local tax bill may now even be worse. He is not what he claims.... making huge school districts would be a mistake... big means more problems and removes visibilty of what is really happening... you don't want that.

Nope don't, but am married to someone who has worked (and is continuing to work) in education for over 40 years. I can tell you that she talks about "waste" pretty often and has identified several areas that could be cut, and doesn't happen to believe one needs to throw more and more money at a problem in order to fix it. Tough times call for tough solutions. How many assistant superintendents does one school district really need? How many vehicles does a school district really need to operate? How many ESL programs does a district really need to fund? What size classroom could a district handle in lean times? How many retreats do board members need to take and where do they hold them? How many assistant coaches are really necessary (paid ones)? Would fees for extra-curricular activities be appropriate at this time? How many assistant principals are really needed to run the campus effectively? Are there ways to save in the cafeteria that have not been found? How about everyone taking a 10% temporary pay cut? Are all those classroom aides really necessary for the classroom to function properly? Is everyone on reduced/free meals actually meeting the eligibility criteria? How about working harder to get the kids actually in school so they will count toward state funding? How's the drop out rate working? Could we look at year round schooling to better utilize our facilities? Do we need all those specialized magnet and single-sex, over-age student schools? How about vouchers as a way to reward "good schools" and help close those that should be closed and lessen the financial burden? How about looking at the retiree benefit programs and the length of time needed to work to qualify for retirement? How big is too big? Don't tell me that a district like Denton ISD couldn't consolidate Argyle and say Krum ISD's and handle it efficiently and effectively with many fewer administrative positions and the costs associated with same.

Look I know it's tough, but I can 100% guarantee you that not every cost-saving idea has been honestly looked at and reviewed. I am not saying that all the above would help nor are they all workable suggestions, but they all deserve discussion-honest and serious discussion and those listed are far from all that need to be considered. I could probably come up with 20-30 more within the next ten minutes.

I am a fan of the arts/music, athletic and other such programs in the schools and have no desire to see any cut. And, I don't think they need to be cut, but every area and every department needs to do its part to help in this situation. Just throwing up your hands and blaming Perry and begging for more money will not solve the problem. It is way past time to start taking the emotion out of this situation and start attacking the problem without all the "not in my backyard" mentality that prevails.

Time to find a solution.

[KRAM1]

How about this for a start...Plano just eliminated the second highest paid person in the district when they cut the Associate Superintendent's position...his salary was around $211,000/yer...that is before social security, health care costs, retirement system costs, medicare and associated other perks the guy received. That should save the district well over $300,000/year right there. Seems maybe they didn't need that admin position after all. Amazing how they now find they can get along without that extra salary and position. Tough times folks, tough decisions. They can be made if people are willing to actually get creative and look at all areas.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

How about this for a start...Plano just eliminated the second highest paid person in the district when they cut the Associate Superintendent's position...his salary was around $211,000/yer...that is before social security, health care costs, retirement system costs, medicare and associated other perks the guy received. That should save the district well over $300,000/year right there. Seems maybe they didn't need that admin position after all. Amazing how they now find they can get along without that extra salary and position. Tough times folks, tough decisions. They can be made if people are willing to actually get creative and look at all areas.

That move may save them money this year, and the other workers will pick up the slack for the short term. In the end though, workers get tired of over working and they leave. Then you have high turnover in a position, because everyone will eventually feel that way.

American workers are the peak of effeciency and work more hours (per week) than anyone in the world. We also have less vacation than any industrialized nation.

So your claim that just joining entities together, having one of the staff cover both of them and lay off the rest -- is -- well -- silly. It is how my company handled the last downturn and it worked out well for one year. Then we lost 20% of our staff when they went and got more satisfying jobs elsewhere. Then we hired a slew of temp-quality workers (because, after all management always minimizes the skills required for a job) and our quality is atrocious now. I mean HORRIBLE. Our schedules have slipped and now the company is talking about losing money on the missed schedules and cost of supporting low quality.

Just because it takes 9 months to have a baby, doesn't mean you can have 9 people on it and get a baby in 1 month. Management and administrators get lost in the numbers and forget the rest. It is amazing.

[KRAM1]

That move may save them money this year, and the other workers will pick up the slack for the short term. In the end though, workers get tired of over working and they leave. Then you have high turnover in a position, because everyone will eventually feel that way.

American workers are the peak of effeciency and work more hours (per week) than anyone in the world. We also have less vacation than any industrialized nation.

So your claim that just joining entities together, having one of the staff cover both of them and lay off the rest -- is -- well -- silly. It is how my company handled the last downturn and it worked out well for one year. Then we lost 20% of our staff when they went and got more satisfying jobs elsewhere. Then we hired a slew of temp-quality workers (because, after all management always minimizes the skills required for a job) and our quality is atrocious now. I mean HORRIBLE. Our schedules have slipped and now the company is talking about losing money on the missed schedules and cost of supporting low quality.

Just because it takes 9 months to have a baby, doesn't mean you can have 9 people on it and get a baby in 1 month. Management and administrators get lost in the numbers and forget the rest. It is amazing.

Oh, but you speak of private industry. That is entirely different than what we see in many of the bloated payrolls and budgets for tax supported entities. The largest area of employment growth lately has been within the public sector. While all the other sectors cut and do more with less, the public sector continues to grow and strain the minority of folks who actually pay taxes in this great nation of ours. The last report I read said that less than 50% of the people in this great nation of ours pay any federal income tax at all. What one sees time and time again are taxpayer paid work forces that have no clue about how to run efficient "ships" as they have not been required to do so. In my industry (finance) we dealt with many many different governmental agencies from the federal to the state to the local. While I ran across a great number of dedicated and very hard working public payroll staffers, I also saw countless numbers of unnecessary, unmotivated and untrained workers who just were drawing a paycheck. In fact, some even made it harder on those who actually did work hard to get their jobs done. Often they couldn't wait for that comp time to come around or when their next vacation was scheduled. There is no doubt that public payrolls are bloated and growing at the same time. Tough time call for tough action and it is well past time that public entities started running on a balanced budget without relying on added tax revenue to "make up the difference".

In the private world...unless you are handcuffed by some union contract...there are choices and consequences to management's decisions. As you say, you can change jobs, and the business can suffer from a profit standpoint. Running an inefficient "shop" in the public sector does not have the same consequences. There is always more tax money that can be thrown at it to keep it afloat and so it can hire more to do less.

Some of what I say you feel is "well --silly". That's probably what most folks would say if working for a tax supported entity and didn't want to really look hard at all areas to see where they could be more efficient. I understand.

[mad dog]

There was a great article posted by UNT's own Dr. Bob Bland, an acknowledged and leading expert on government revenue policy. I won't cut and paste the whole article, but here are two paragraphs that I forward to people on the "government people get paid too much" bandwagon. Not to say that there aren't some people in government being paid more than they are worth - there are. There will, by logic and statistics, always be some people paid too much and some paid too little for the work they produce, no matter what sector you are talking about.

As the recovery from the Great Recession of 2008-09 has languished, a tone of resentment has emerged at the compensation packages for those in the public sector. This resentment has been particularly pointed at the pension plans of some public employees, especially plans that seem overly generous given the stark economic realities state and local governments now face. In fact, in the past two years state and local governments have made significant reductions in their workforces. Those employees who remain faced furlough days or reductions in salary or benefits as state and local governments have struggled to balance their budgets. If we believe in the competitive market as the ultimate arbiter of a fair price and if we believe that the demand for and supply of labor operates in such a market, then the compensation packages of public employees reflect the market forces at work at any point in time. Contracts and other restrictive measures to market entry and exit may temporarily skew wages and salaries, but over the long term the market for labor adapts and wages reflect the market clearing price. Few would argue that the competitive labor market fails in setting wage and compensation rates for employees in the private sector, and few can make a credible claim the same market which supplies labor for the public sector also fails to set compensation rates in the long term.

The blurring of the lines between public and private sectors has also blurred the distinction between the role of public service and that of private employment. If private employees are laid off during a recession, why should the same fate not befall public employees? If government is going to be run like business, then government payrolls need to shrink along with business as the economy shrinks and revenues decline. The fallacy is the assumption that government is just another producer of private goods and services. Whereas business production is driven by markets, government production is driven by political processes -- budgets, interest groups, political coalitions, crises. While governments produce services that may appear as though they arise out of a marketplace -- water, waste water, even education -- the decision to provide these services has little to do with market signals. In fact, demand for higher education is countercyclical. But few states are increasing funding to higher education to accommodate the uptick in demand. The choice and level of public services provided by governments emanate out of political processes rather than markets. A decision by a government to reduce service levels because of a reduction in revenues is a political decision and not a market decision.

For what I do right now, I would command a salary three times what I'm making right now, in the private sector. Yes, I have good benefits, but the total value of the package is still about half of whatever I'd be making in a typical corporate climate. The tradeoff there is that, when the economy sucks, I'll still have my government job. When the getting is good, there is no way even lavishly paid public managers can hold a candle to what executives of companies with similar financial profiles make. A heavily tenured Texas manager will make 200-300k in a large, well established city. A heavily tenured CEO of a similarly profiled private company commands a salary in the millions, excluding perks and benefits. So what we see is that, just as Dr. Bland said, the market has indeed settled out the relative cost-benefit of security in proportionally analogous organizations. If you remove the security aspect of government, you will either need to raise salaries to match the private sector or be comfortable with attracting a lower quality (and quantity) of employee.

At higher levels of staffing, ANY organization is prone to bloat, excess, and complacency. This is as true for the public and private sectors. Since there are no businesses with a $2.38 trillion revenue profile, you can't really compare any private sector company to the federal government. Even the state of Texas operates on a scale that dwarfs all but the most massive companies (Texas Revenue $73 billion, Microsoft $62.4).

In summary, government jobs exist outside of the market, but are still affected by market pressures through hiring and retention to drive salaries to a competitive cost point. All we're seeing right now is the benefit of stability; when times get good, they are far more lucrative over on the other side.

[UNTFan23]

Even the state of Texas operates on a scale that dwarfs all but the most massive companies (Texas Revenue $73 billion, Microsoft $62.4).

$60 Billion is considered massive? I work for a company that makes that much revenue in about 2 months.

Edited January 27, 2011 by UNTFan23

[KRAM1]

Someone asked why Perry should have refused the government money...well, today's Dallas Morning news article offers just one example of how more problems can be created than solved when one takes federal handouts. Headlines read "DISD Plans to Fire 290". Those 290 positions were all created and funded by government stimulus money. DISD apparently thought the "handouts" were going to continue forever, but have now found out otherwise and will be firing all 290 that were hired with the "stimulus" money. They couldn't even see the ":handwriting on the wall" it appears and made absolutely no contingency plans (other than firing those hired) if, in fact, the funds were not renewed. Now they blame the government for not continuing the handout. Seems to me that DISD (Dallas) would have been better off either refusing the funds in the first place (and making the adjustments they should have been making at the time to budgets) or made some contingency plans such as not filling every open position in case some or all of the funds were not renewed...I guess the wonderful DISD leadership thought the funds would become another government entitlement and just keep coming forever. Were there strings attached to the federal stimulus funds? You bet your bottom dollar there were and now the problem of taking the funds in the first place have come home to roost. Just putting off a problem and placing a federal "gift" of funds band-aid on a problem does not solve it or mean leadership is acting in a fiscally responsible way. Now watch all the crying from DISD leadership about how they will have to make the tough decisions and people will lose their jobs! Amazing lack of foresight and planning.

[Shuke-D]

Damn. Biggie was right.

[Censored by Laurie]

Damn. Biggie was right.

Greatest prophet of our generation.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Nope don't, but am married to someone who has worked (and is continuing to work) in education for over 40 years. I can tell you that she talks about "waste" pretty often and has identified several areas that could be cut, and doesn't happen to believe one needs to throw more and more money at a problem in order to fix it. Tough times call for tough solutions. How many assistant superintendents does one school district really need? How many vehicles does a school district really need to operate? How many ESL programs does a district really need to fund? What size classroom could a district handle in lean times? How many retreats do board members need to take and where do they hold them? How many assistant coaches are really necessary (paid ones)? Would fees for extra-curricular activities be appropriate at this time? How many assistant principals are really needed to run the campus effectively? Are there ways to save in the cafeteria that have not been found? How about everyone taking a 10% temporary pay cut? Are all those classroom aides really necessary for the classroom to function properly? Is everyone on reduced/free meals actually meeting the eligibility criteria? How about working harder to get the kids actually in school so they will count toward state funding? How's the drop out rate working? Could we look at year round schooling to better utilize our facilities? Do we need all those specialized magnet and single-sex, over-age student schools? How about vouchers as a way to reward "good schools" and help close those that should be closed and lessen the financial burden? How about looking at the retiree benefit programs and the length of time needed to work to qualify for retirement? How big is too big? Don't tell me that a district like Denton ISD couldn't consolidate Argyle and say Krum ISD's and handle it efficiently and effectively with many fewer administrative positions and the costs associated with same.

Look I know it's tough, but I can 100% guarantee you that not every cost-saving idea has been honestly looked at and reviewed. I am not saying that all the above would help nor are they all workable suggestions, but they all deserve discussion-honest and serious discussion and those listed are far from all that need to be considered. I could probably come up with 20-30 more within the next ten minutes.

I am a fan of the arts/music, athletic and other such programs in the schools and have no desire to see any cut. And, I don't think they need to be cut, but every area and every department needs to do its part to help in this situation. Just throwing up your hands and blaming Perry and begging for more money will not solve the problem. It is way past time to start taking the emotion out of this situation and start attacking the problem without all the "not in my backyard" mentality that prevails.

Time to find a solution.

---Most of us just settle for the money we once had from the state.... Your local taxes have taken a big hit (or at least most have). Waste... you don't live in any district around here. Address (or replace) you school board then... that isn't the fault of the state... local boards run things locally.....and are therefore charging you too much in property taxes.

I am retired from public school but teach college classes, the state funding has been severely dropping in both.. Considering the economy of Texas is WAY better than most states and that we have few repos compared to most, plus good sale tax revenue and even oil prices are high [about $90 per bbl.].... we should not be in this situation with good state leadership. We weren't in the 90's and oil was about $15-20, even as the dot.com crashed and hurt north Dallas and Austin area economies. You may not want to admit the truth, but it doesn't change it....

Edited February 1, 2011 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66