Cy-Fair Budget Shortfall

[VicMan]

I thought we wanted kids to go to school ? I can't think of ONE highschool kid that is gonna walk 2 miles in the morning to get to school. Better scale that back to 1 mile. Vic, go ask your friends around school if they'd WALK 2 miles to get to school

The kids could also ride bicycles, drive their own automobiles, or have parents drive them. The thing about HISD is in much of it METRO operates, allowing for students to ride city buses to school.

I think Spring Branch ISD has one mile as its limit. EDIT: SBISD says it provides free "transportation" to all students PreK-12 - I do not know exactly what that means, though: http://www.springbranchisd.com/districtinf...nsportation.htm

I am now out of high school, but most of the kids who went to my high school did not live within two miles of the school. I think some kids who lived nearby had private bus services.

[GettaClue]

Maybe High School age and older Junior high kids can walk 2 miles but I don't think any elementary age child should be given that responsibility in this day and age. Who knows what could happen. They could get hit by a car or even abducted along the way. They are not mature enough to sense danger and not every parent is able to walk with them due to work schedules or other children that they care for. To apply a blanket policy as you stated would be irresponsible!

Two miles is standard in many, many places in this country for school bus service.

It has been repeatedly proven that kids are much safer walking to school when more of them are doing it. One or two all on their own is a big concern. But a whole neighborhood of kids walking at given times of day is a decent situation.

Moreover, there is a movement that's been gaining momentum for several years now in the US called "walking school buses."

From WalkingSchoolBus.org:

"A walking school bus is a group of children walking to school with one or more adults. If that sounds simple, it is, and that

[Jedijake]

Well, since this is money for education, let's make the taxes fit the programs that are budgeted. Let's only tax people with children. Kind of like a toll road. You don't pay the toll if you do not drive on the road. So, why should I pay school taxes for your kids if I don't have any? And, what does my enjoyment of a cocktail and a smoke (something I can't even enjoy at the same time anymore) have to do with the fact that you couldn't keep it in your pants?

Devil's advocate? Or do you honestly feel that way? Sounds a little fictitious and far-fetched to actually believe this.

If only people with children were taxed, unfortunately schools, and therefore society, would cease to exist. Colleges wouldn't be able to train doctors, engineers, accountants, lawyers, etc. Then, all of the people who complained that they should not be taxed for "other people's children" would suffer under the strain created by a lack of those who are actually supporting them. Toll roads are one thing because they cost $1-$2 on average everytime they are passed.

There's no easy fix. Cutting the salaries of the top-end administrators in the central office positions are options.

But it's true that getting into the actual argument of how people should be taxed for the purpose of public education has been a long disputed issue and probably needs to have its own thread.

By fault for bringing it up here.

[RedScare]

Devil's advocate? Or do you honestly feel that way? Sounds a little fictitious and far-fetched to actually believe this.

If only people with children were taxed, unfortunately schools, and therefore society, would cease to exist. Colleges wouldn't be able to train doctors, engineers, accountants, lawyers, etc. Then, all of the people who complained that they should not be taxed for "other people's children" would suffer under the strain created by a lack of those who are actually supporting them. Toll roads are one thing because they cost $1-$2 on average everytime they are passed.

There's no easy fix. Cutting the salaries of the top-end administrators in the central office positions are options.

But it's true that getting into the actual argument of how people should be taxed for the purpose of public education has been a long disputed issue and probably needs to have its own thread.

By fault for bringing it up here.

I would think a thread on school funding shortfalls is the perfect place to bring up school funding mechanisms.

I am only playing devil's advocate to a point. I have never complained about paying school taxes, as I understand the value to the entire community of educating children. What I DO complain about is the selfish and greedy citizens among us who wish to force everyone else to pay for their children's education by only taxing those activities in which they do not participate, such as the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and lottery tickets. I find it especially egregious when those citizens are both parents AND teachers, those who not only wish to force their children's tax burden onto me, but also to receive my tax largesse in the form of salary.

This type of thinking is exactly what caused Cy-Fair's and other Texas school districts' funding problems in the first place. This refusal on the part of "Americans" to contribute to the funding of institutions that made this country strong and prosperous is the reason that the United States finds itself with failing schools, crumbling infrastructure and diminished world standing. One would think that those who benefit most from what this country has to offer, such as the wealthy and parents whose children receive a free public primary education and subsidized secondary education, would be the first to step up to contribute their fair share to ensure that these institutions survive and thrive...

...but, one would be wrong. Today's America should be funded by smokers, drinkers and gamblers, so that the "pure" amongst us may frolic in a tax-free wonderland.

Hogwash.

[Jedijake]

I can see your point about centralizing more taxes on only certain activities.

However, money does have to come from somewhere. A lot of people look at the voucher system as a solution to issues like these. The problem is that vouchers do not take away the burden of the cost of schools. They only spread it in other areas. Of course, vouchers are a whole other topic.

In a general sense, having families with children who attend school pay more taxes only seems logical. How much of an increase would that create for those families? Would families with more children pay more taxes? Is that an incentive to not have children in a time when it is already very expensive?

Whatever the case and whatever the proposed solution would be, there is no escaping taxes and paying for public education. At the same time, there is no way privatization of education would ever satisfy the problem either.

For Texas (since we are here) to increase the quality of education and thus the quality of professionals and labor, there has to be better solutions to the funding of education. Most people have complaints about the lack of quality of education. Very few, however, have any real tangible possible solutions. When solutions are offered, they are usually fiercely rejected and the complaining continues. This is a cyclical problem that also can be applied to health care, cost of housing, etc. The unfortunate result is increasing amount of blame and a diminished sense of faith in those areas.

[RedScare]

Vouchers are Exhibit #1 to the mentality that I just criticized. It is the preferred solution of the selfish and greedy to only use their taxes on their own children. It is to that group that I pitch my "only parents should pay school taxes" argument.

The money does have to come from somewhere. A logical place to look is to those who benefit most from educated children. Obviously, ALL of us benefit immensely from educated children, as educated children tend not to become uneducated criminals and uneducated welfare recipients. So, ALL of the taxpaying residents of the state have a vested interest in a well-educated state, and should pay up for a top-notch school system. But, business benefits immensely from a well educated workforce as well. And, I mean ALL business in the state. They benefit from well educated employees, and they benefit from well educated...and therefore well compensated...consumers.

A good funding mechanism would spread the burden to all who benefit from good public schools. But, that is the problem. Our current state leadership is not interested in fair funding. They are interested in pushing the burden onto others. Frankly, they are most interested in abolishing public schools altogether, but they don't think they can get away with it. Those who are interested in good public schools and fair funding of them should be voting against Perry, Craddick, Patrick and the other enemies of public education. Those who are merely interested in not paying their fair share keep voting them in.

I wonder if you are voting for good schools, Jedi.

[Jedijake]

Those are all excellent points. I agree with them pretty much 100%-particularly the first statement about vouchers being the supposed solution from those who are greedy. It is under my impression that those who support vouchers the most at least seem to be those who would like the government to pay for their children to go to private schools. Again, that is the impression I get.

And yes, of course I vote in support of good schools.

A lot of good that does, but at least we can try.

[RedScare]

And yes, of course I vote in support of good schools.

A lot of good that does, but at least we can try.

Well, we CAN try. I am always surprised at the number of seemingly educated people who want to shut down the public schools, rather than improve them. It is not hard to explain the value of educating "inner city youth"...to use their code words for minorities...in a manner that appeals to their selfish motives. Try pointing out, truthfully, what Niche said, that uneducated criminals are dangerous and expensive. Isn't it a whole lot cheaper to educate these future home invaders than to pay for more cops, LAWYERS (that'll get 'em going), judges and prisons? One would think that even Rick Perry and Tom Craddick could understand that logic (well, maybe I am getting ahead of myself here).

The consumption society has caused a lot of problems in a lot of areas. Schools are merely one of them. Realistically, until the voters demand that their elected officials create a realistic funding mechanism, perhaps by voting them out, we will continue to have embarrassments such as an $11 Billion state budget surplus at the same time that our schools go bankrupt. But, maybe Cy-Fair going bankrupt is a good thing. If Cy-Fair's voters elect Dan Patrick, and he promptly goes to Austin and bankrupts the schools, maybe they will stop electing people like him. Maybe they'll elect people that actually care about education instead.

Sometimes it takes a crisis to get our attention.