$830 million for school jobs: it's here!

O

orangecat1

500+ Posts
from the TEA website:

Update on Education Jobs Fund
On April 26, Texas received $830,820,460 under the Education Jobs Fund (Ed Jobs). These funds will be allocated to eligible local educational agencies (LEAs) based on weighted average daily attendance (WADA). Allocations will be posted on TEA’s website no later than the week of May 9, 2011. The beginning date of the Ed Jobs grant is August 10, 2010, and the ending date is September 30, 2012.

For local education agencies (LEAs) with an approved 2009-2010 or 2010-2011 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Title XIV State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) grant application, no grant application is required for Ed Jobs funds. For LEAs without an approved 2009-2010 or 2010-2011 SFSF grant application, a brief Ed Jobs grant application will be required and will be emailed to the superintendent or chief operating officer (for an open-enrollment charter school) of these LEAs.

will be interesting to see how this impacts all of the scheduled layoffs. Dallas ISD, for example can get 26 million $. This is not enough by itself to stop all layoffs, but it sure can put a huge dent in to the problem.

Bigger question is will Perry try to get his hands on the money and take it away from education?
 
Where did this money come from? Thin air? Is it being added to the debt ceiling?

It sounds fantastic on paper. Do we actually have this money to spend already?
 
2003, it's my understanding that this is the federal money that Doggett and Perry fought over, notice the money was available since 2010, but the fight happened. it is my understanding that Doggett's amendment was recently "overturned" in another bill that passed, and that is the reason they money is just now getting here.

My biggest fear is Rick Perry trying to get that money.
 
It was always my understanding that the $830 million from the Feds was already included in the equation for how much in the red the state education system would end up. It basically offsets the overall total by 15 percent.
 
This is federal funding for Texas education. Since all funding goes into the general fund, there have been fights over trying to make certain money streams "dedicated funds."
Take the sporting goods tax. This tax is imposed on guns, ammunition, fishing equipment, and other sporting goods. When passed, the tax was to support Texas Parks and Recreation. Instead, the money, a fairly large sum, goes into the general revenue fund, and politicians strangle the parks department to the point they can't maintain facilities or vehicles.
Senator Doggett attempted to require the $830 million to go directly to education in Texas rather than through the general fund. So Perry refused the funds with the "strings attached" and issued PR after PR message that Doggett had cut off federal funding for Texas education.
That is the real issue here.
Now maybe this year the entire $830 million will go to education, because of the shortfall and all the scrutiny. But Doggett's bill would have required the federal funds for education sent to Texas to always be spent on, duh, education. Two years from now, the next federal funding will go into the general fund, and only half or three-quarters may flow out to education. Perry may want a scenic loop built around College Station with the remaining money, or who knows what other pet project.
I think dedicated taxes are the fairest way to fund governmental projects, and funds like the sporting goods tax should go to where the fund should go.
I also think it shady, back-door politics to take all these funds and use them for other purposes. It is the antithesis of open government.
And as far as the bottom line on education is concerned, the $830 million will certainly help, but I believe the overall funding is still several billion less than two years ago, so all Texas school districts remain strained financially.
And let there be no mistake, the financial crisis was created solely by one act-the Republican property tax cut. They created the business "franchise tax," and claimed the property tax cut would be revenue neutral due to the new business tax. They lied, the franchise tax brings in far less than the cut in property tax. They created this budget crisis, probably intentionally, so they could claim they have to make these cuts, instead of manning up and standing on their philosophies.
 
"I think dedicated taxes are the fairest way to fund governmental projects, and funds like the sporting goods tax should go to where the fund should go. I also think it shady, back-door politics to take all these funds and use them for other purposes. It is the antithesis of open government."


Exact-a-mundo, transparency & honesty in Texas Gub'ment.... p'fffft.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
yo
"wasn't that what the fight was over between Doggett and Perry? Perry wouldn't accept the money, because it had to be spent for schools"

not really. Doggett forced an amendment that said if Texas took the education money it had to fund at the same level for 3 years after the fed money ran out.
No other state had the same restriction.

"Doggett, an Austin Democrat, has been fuming for more than a year over Texas' use of the $3.2 billion in federal stimulus money intended to help public schools in 2009.

He said that money was intended to supplement state education dollars, not replace them.

Since Texas' rainy day fund was flush with billions in cash, Doggett argued the state didn't need the federal dollars to plug its budget hole.

Legislators disagreed, anticipating much rainier days probably ahead.

Lots of states did the same thing with their stimulus money, but Doggett didn't want it to happen again in Texas. He tried - and failed - last year to pass a measure that constrained how Texas could spend its education stimulus money.

This summer, Doggett finally scored a victory on this point. His amendment to a $10 billion education jobs measure was aimed at forcing the state to maintain education spending levels even as it grapples next year with an $18 billion - or more - budget shortfall.

The U.S. Department of Education last week denied Texas' application for the $830 million, which is intended to prevent teacher layoffs. The governor failed to provide the assurance called for in the Doggett amendment - that Texas would maintain a certain level of education spending for the next three years.

The state regularly makes these kinds of maintenance agreements to qualify for all kinds of federal money. Under normal circumstances, it is a commitment made by the Legislature when the budget is approved.

This was not a normal circumstance. Perry argued that he would have to violate the Texas Constitution to meet the requirements of the Doggett amendment. A governor cannot appropriate money nor bind a future legislature to future spending.
"The Link
 
LoveHorns post made it clearer than mine did.

as some tried to suggest on here Perry did NOT refuse to spend the money on education.
Doggett inserted an amendment that treated Texas is a completely different way that any other state and it was written in such a way to make it impossible to accept.
Doggett knew it and stupidly thought he could turn it against Perry and Pubs."Perry doesn't care about educating Children in Texas"

I hope perrry doesn't run again and he is not my choice for Guv but in this case he had no choice.
 
Gee Dogget's position was misrepresented to slam the GOP Governor (even though Rick Perry wouldn't be my choice)....I am stunned!
rolleyes.gif
 
If that is true (the requirement that no reduction take place for three years in Texas education spending), and I will look into it, that would be a different story. Further research is required.
 
If I sound like Ron Paul good.... but where in the United States Constitution does it say that federal government should be spending money on education?

Just billions more spent that we don't have, nor is there authourisation for...


Granted, Perry is worse than a douche and Texas as a state should spend MORE MORE MORE on education. We ought to also do things like hold parents and educators and the system accountable for learning, but instead we just get W's (and Teddy's) mandatory tests....
 
accurate
Good, I am glad you will look into the Doggett amendment and the ramifications. I will look forward to your opinion.
 
The problem with Texas education is not that we are not spending enough money it is how it is being spent.

The worst school districts in the state spend the most money. The worst school districts in the state pulll down all the other districts that some of the best in the country.

The problems with the Texas education system are highly polarized. I would take a Plano, Lewisville, Cypress Fairbanks, Katy, and Klein school districts and pit them against any Public school districts in the country. Why do these communities know what to do with the money and Dallas, Austin, Houston, El Paso and San Antonio have no clue on what to do? All those school districts want is more money, yea that will solve the problem, just give them more money.
 
I a certainly in no position to talk about where this money is coming from, but if the money was already allocated and pulled from a general tax fund of real money, then good.

Concerning the actual education system itself? Well thats another story. It sucks. Texas schools aret educating kids the way they need to be educated, especially at the secondary level. You cannot compare Westlake or Katy to Austin ISD. The dynamics are different. The demographics are different. The values and perspectives are different, but Texas insists on teaching all these kids the exact same way. You cant do that. There needs to be much more locally developed cirriculum for the needs of the kids, developed by those who actually know what those needs are.... not from some office in a ivory tower.

Easier said than done, but it needs to be done. Not every kid can or should go to college, and not ever kid should be a doctor or engineer. Education needs to work for everyone, not try to force everyone into the same funnel.
 
this "I think dedicated taxes are the fairest way to fund governmental projects, and funds like the sporting goods tax should go to where the fund should go. "

right on the money accuratehorn.

We need to keep 85% of money generated under a program dedicated to that program.(education for educ., roads for roads, sport for sport, etc)

The last 15% could go to a general fund because we need to have some flexibility to deal with variances. But if we keep 85% directly allocated against what it was collected for, then the shell game that politicians play with our money won't be as hard to follow and we can better decide what really has value/return for citizens.
 
I don't really get this arguement. besides a potential language barrier(Which should not be the school systems problem IMO. learn english, then come to school) that is more prevalent in some areas why should education be tailored.

Sure some kids aren't going to go to college. But, every school should have a range of programs to deal with their spectrum of achievers and non-achievers.why would a school in Plano need a different curriculum than a school in Austin??
 
When I was teaching in Austin ISD, I worked with the top kids in all 11 high schools. At one, well over $100,000 was spent on trying to get the top 10% of the senior class into college. Their SAT's were paid for by the district, they had a dedicated counselor (for about 25 kids) and lots of extra test prep, etc. The last kid in that top 10% had a 2.3 GPA (with a weighted 4.0 system where the top kids in other schools had well over 4.0's.). Even if they had gotten into a college, there was little chance they could succeed. Were they being well-served and was the money being well-spent? I didn't think so.
 
OK, I see that Rep. Doggett's law required Texas to maintain education spending at current levels through 2013, as well as require the federal education monies to be spent on education. But there is a reason for this-otherwise it is a shell game. If you give $1 to Texas for education and the state then reduces education spending by $2, Texas can say it spent the $1 on education, but did it?
Teachers still lose their jobs, schools are eliminated, and the class sizes rise, etc.
In what manner could the federal dollars have been guaranteed to go to education without such a stipulation by Doggett? There is none, just like the license plate funds that are supposed to go to conservation, just like the sporting goods tax supposed to go to parks, just like the gasoline tax supposed to go to highway construction and maintenance.
It all goes into a big pot, and the politicians divy it up the way they want.
This is what Doggett attempted to remedy by his amendment to the federal education funding bill. It didn't work, and now the $830 million has flowed to the general revenue coffers of Texas. Will the schools actually now get $830 million more than the recent budget proposal? I doubt it. The schools may get none of it, half, who knows how much.
The whole process needs to change somehow, and Doggett's bill tried to force the state to do so. Maybe it wasn't the best way, but at least he tried something.
 
accurate
I think you are confused over what Doggett was trying to do. It was NEVER that the state didn't spend the 3.2 billion it got for Education on Education. It was that Doggett felt the state should spend the rainy day fund instead. Thank goodness the state didn't as things have gotten much worse than in 09 .
Perry couldn't do what Doggett tried to force the state to do.
So what did doggett accomplish by pushing through an amendment that only applied to Texas and that he knew couldn't be enacted? If he felt so strongly about something most states did why single out Texas?
By his silly move He denied funds to the state.

You agree Texas, like all other states, needs education money, right?
Now if he'd passed an amendment that applied to all states I;d say he was sincere. The fact that he singled out Texas knowing the state couldn't do it shows it was a political move that hurt our state
 
I don't see your interpretation at all, 6721. Doggett is from Texas, so like other reps he wants to lobby for funds for his state and district. To me this seemed like a sincere effort to ensure the funds would go to education, not Perry's Enterprise Fund or other such projects. I don't buy Perry's political PR spin on this, I look at the bottom line on what is being spent on education. Less money is less money.
How else could the funds be guaranteed to go to education?
 
accurate
You are trying to say Doggett implied the state used education money for other purposes.
according to Doggett's own words he felt that instead of taking fed money for education ( like all other states did) the state should have used rainy day funds.

If asd you say he is all about getting federal money for Texas why would he deny federal money for Texas. It would be disingenous to say his amendment could have resulted in money coming here. He knew a Gov couldn't do what his amendment required.


The issue for Doggett was he felt Texas, unlike other states , should not have accepted 3.2 billion education money in 09 so it he tried to make sure we couldn't get the 830 million in 11.
Does that sound like a rep wanting to get our state as much as he can?
 
He didn't try to deny the funds to Texas, he tried to ensure the flow of the funds would fully go to finance the education of the children of Texas. You can spin it all you want, like Perry, but you know that is what the fight is all about.
If the federal government spends x dollars on education in a state and the state spends 1/2 what they did the year before on education, where did x dollars go? That's why the feds wanted "strings" attached to this money, they didn't want to see it go to fund other things.
 
read this mornings Dallas Morning News, the latest DISD plan is to cut 120 million this coming year, the very last sentence in the article mentions their share of the 830 million.

They will put the 27 million $ in the bank.

Actually pretty good idea, imo, but in reading the info from TEA, it looks to me like you have to actually spend the money by 9/30/2012.

Maybe they use that 27 million to help cover next year's shortfall?
 
AccurateDo you agree under the Texas Constitution a Gov can not bind a future legislature to future spending?Doggett's amendment required Texas, if it accepted the money, to maintain the level of spending for 3 years. A state budget is for 2 years.
so Doggett grandstanded is getting his amendment passed knowing there was no way Perry could guarantee spending at a certain level for 3 years.


Meso
Doggett( from bloomberg link )
"Texas lawmakers used $3.2 billion in federal stimulus money to replace state money and ended the legislative session with billions in the state's Rainy Day Fund, Doggett said."The Link

and this from a KXAN link
"Doggett, D-Austin, said he added the requirement because he feared Perry would use the money to merely replace existing state funding, not add to it. He accused the state of using stimulus funds, which most Republicans voted against, to build up the state's rainy day fund.The Link

and this from Dallas Morning News link
Doggett, an Austin Democrat, has been fuming for more than a year over Texas' use of the $3.2 billion in federal stimulus money intended to help public schools in 2009.

He said that money was intended to supplement state education dollars, not replace them.

Since Texas' rainy day fund was flush with billions in cash, Doggett argued the state didn't need the federal dollars to plug its budget hole.

Legislators disagreed, anticipating much rainier days probably ahead.

Lots of states did the same thing with their stimulus money, but Doggett didn't want it to happen again in Texas. He tried - and failed - last year to pass a measure that constrained how Texas could spend its education stimulus money.The Link

IF as some pointed out an elected Pol in DC's job is to get as much federal aid as possible why did Doggett get so angry about a rainy day fund in his state to the point he worked to deny more Fed funds to his state?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top