Author Archives: Monty Exter

May elections – A Texas two-fer

Most everyone knows about the general election in November, and more folks are becoming aware of the importance of the March primaries, but May is also an important, albeit confusing election month. Like November, May hosts a general uniform election date. This year that election is on Saturday, May 5th. But the month of May, also hosts the separate primary runoff election date, which this year is on Tuesday, May 22nd.

In addition to municipal ballot issues, many of the school districts around the state hold their school board and school bond elections on the May 5th uniform election date. These are important elections that set the tone for the local policy decisions and funding of your community’s public schools. As a part of adopting an overall culture of voting, Texas educators should always vote during this election.

What is not on the May 5th ballot are any state or federal candidates. Those candidates* are on the May 22nd primary runoff ballot. This year’s state level runoff races include:

Governor                         D           Andrew White vs. Lupe Valdez

SBOE 12                         D          Suzanne Smith vs. Laura Malone-Miller

Senate District 17           D           Rita Lucido vs. Fran Watson

House District 4              R           Keith Bell vs. Stuart Spitzer

House District 8              R           Cody Harris vs. Thomas McNutt

House District 13            R           Jill Wolfskill vs. Ben Leman

House District 37            D           Rene Oliveira vs. Alex Dominguez

House District 45            D           Rebecca Bell-Metereau vs. Erin Zwierner

House District 46            D           Chito Vela vs. Sheryl Cole

House District 47            D           Vikki Goodwin vs. Elaina Fowler

House District 54            R           Scott Cosper vs. Brad Buckley

House District 62            R           Reggie Smith vs. Brent Lawson

House District 64            D           Mat Pruneda vs. Andrew Morris

House District 107          R           Joe Ruzicka vs. Deanna Maria Metzger

House District 109          D           Deshaundra Lockhart Jones vs. Carl Sherman

House District 121          R           Steve Allison vs. Matt Bebe

House District 133          D           Sandra Moore vs. Marty Schexnayder

*To see more about each candidate, click on the candidate’s name above.

While everyone who is registered to vote can cast a ballot in the May 5th election, you must be eligible to vote in the May 22nd runoff election. So who is eligible and qualified to vote in the runoffs? The simple answer is anyone who is registered to vote and who did not vote for the opposing party during the March primary election. Some examples:

  • If you voted in the Republican primary election in March, you are eligible to vote in the Republican runoff in May.
  • If you didn’t vote at all in the March primary, you ARE eligible to vote in either runoff election (but not both) on May 22nd.
  • If you voted in the Republican primary election in March, you would not be eligible to vote in the Democratic runoff election in May.

Regardless of who you vote for in March or May, you may vote for a candidate of any party or even independent candidates in November. Your (wise) decision to vote in a partisan primary in March/May is in no way binding on your November ballot.

If you have additional questions about voting or candidates please contact ATPE Governmental Relations or call 1-800-777-ATPE

Showdown at TRS quarterly board meeting

The TRS board met for its quarterly meeting in in Austin this week. Per the board’s new schedule all subcommittee meetings were held on Thursday, April 19, with the full board meeting today, Friday, April 20.

Thursday’s subcommittee meetings included the Benefits Committee; the Budget Committee; the Strategic Planning Committee; the Policy Committee; the Audit, Compliance and Ethics Committee; and the Investment Management Committee. Committee agendas are attached in the links above.

Perhaps most significant among the committee discussion was the recommendation of new rates and policy design for TRS-ActiveCare for the 2019/20 school year. ActiveCare is a pass-through program, meaning the amount of money coming in from the state is fixed and any additional expense to run the plan is passed through directly to ActiveCare participants. In addition to some level of recommended increase for each of the ActiveCare plans, the staff recommended that enrollment for ActiveCare-2, the traditional PPO plan, be capped to existing participants. The Benefits Committee moved to recommend the staff recommendations to the full board, which adopted those recommendations during their Friday meeting. More detail about each of the ActiveCare plans including costs can be found in tab 3 of the attached Benefits Committee Board book.

Other committee highlights included a discussion of the need for increased authorization to hire additional full time employees (FTEs). The additional FTEs would primarily be utilized to increase staffing (and decrease wait times) in the TRS call center, as well as to continue providing for the midrange staffing needs associated with TRS’s efforts to update its technology infrastructure, known as project TEAM. The new Strategic Planning Committee also held a lengthy conversation with TRS’s new director of communications. In laying out her vision, she emphasized being more proactive and less reactive in the agency’s communications.

The full board began its meeting today by taking public testimony. A number of active and retired educators were present to testify, as well as governmental relations professionals from three of the four statewide teacher groups (including ATPE) and Tim Lee, the executive director of the Texas Retired Teachers Association. By and large the testimony was focused on the board’s upcoming decision to change the expected rate of return on the pension fund later on today’s agenda, as well as personal stories of the real world consequences of changes made to the TRS-Care health insurance program. The TRS members expressed compelling arguments that the expected rate of return should not be lowered at all from the current 8 percent mark. Organizational testifiers were in agreement that lowering the rate from 8 percent to 7.25 percent was overly aggressive, and all supported a much more gradual approach to lower the rate, starting with dropping it first to 7.75 percent.

After public testimony concluded, the rate of return discussion was the first item taken up by the board. TRS executive director Brain Guthrie presented the staff position, which heavily favored a rate of 7.25 percent. At the end of that discussion, one of the board members appointed to represent TRS members moved to set the rate at 7.5 percent. The motion failed on a vote of four to four. Then one of the board members appointed from the financial sector moved to set the rate at 7.25 percent. That motion also failed on a vote of four to four. At that point the board postponed further action on the item until its July board meeting, and the board moved on to consideration of the rest of its Friday agenda.

You can watch an archive of the full Thursday committee meeting here and the full Friday board meeting, including public testimony, here.

The Rainy Day Fund roadshow makes a stop in the House Appropriations Committee

The House Appropriations Committee, similar to its counterpart in the Senate, heard a number of interim charges Wednesday. Of note for public education, and for educators in particular, was an interim charge to continue to study strategies to use the Economic Stabilization Fund (ESF), also known as the “rainy day fund,” to generate additional revenue for state obligations without compromising the fund’s intended purpose. The charge instructed lawmakers to evaluate the current methodology used to set the ESF cap.

The committee heard testimony on ESF investment history, utilization, and investment practices from the Legislative Budget Board, the state comptroller, and the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, whose executive director helped draft the legislation that brought the ESF into existence.

Read more about Comptroller Glenn Hegar’s plan to invest ESF dollars to create new revenue stream to fund state priorities and why that revenue is needed, in this previous Teach the Vote blog post.

SBOE Receives Public Feedback on Their Long Range Plan

After completing their regular committee work, State Board members received a report on the feedback that was received from the community engagement sessions held around the state over the course of several months in late 2017 and early 2018. A total of 680 members of the public attended one of 11 sessions. More than eleven thousand Texans responded to an online survey designed to elicit additional feedback on the same topics covered at the live sessions. The topics covered during the community conversations included student engagement and empowerment; educator preparation, recruitment, and retention; equity and access; and family engagement and empowerment.

A few of the takeaways from the survey responses; of the more the 9,300 who answered the question on funding equity, only 14.1 percent of Texans found that the level of equity in school funding in Texas was good or excellent, while 54.9 percent found that it was poor. The public ranked ensuring teacher pay equity between affluent and less affluent schools and providing “leadership and advanced career opportunities for teachers who want to remain in the classroom,” as their first and second priorities in educator preparation, recruitment and retention.

View the entire discussion on the public feedback related to the Board’s Long Range Plan here.

More information on the community / public feedback, as well as, additional information about the Long Range Plan and the Long Range Plan Steering Committee can be found here.

The next, and potentially final, Long Range Planning committee will be held on May 14. After the committee concludes it will report its recommendations to the State Board which will consider, potentially edit, and ultimately adopt some of all of the report as the State Board of Education’s Long Range Plan.

Senate State Affairs Committee discusses future of TRS pension fund

The Senate State Affairs Committee met in Austin this week to discuss interim charges about the health of various state and municipal pension systems, including the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) of Texas. The committee heard invited testimony from the staff and members of the Texas Pension Review Board (PRB), as well as the heads of several pension systems, including TRS Executive Director Brian Guthrie.

Some of the more general discussion included senators, including Sen. Charles Schwertner in particular, making the case that defined benefit pension systems are somehow inherently flawed and should be scrapped and replaced with 401(k)-style defined contribution systems. This now tired pitch, whose real aim is to line the pockets of private money managers, has been soundly refuted on many fronts, particularly as it applies to TRS. First 401(k)s have proven to be not so wonderful retirement vehicles. For the average American population which relies on them for the bulk of their retirement planning, these investment vehicles have proven to be a tool that generally leads to a woefully underfunded retirement account that is highly sensitive to market volatility and has left many in bad positions with regard to their retirement security. Second, 401(k)s were never meant to stand alone. They were really meant to be a supplement to a more traditional pension system, but even as that has gone by the wayside for many, they are still intended to be on top of Social Security benefits. However, most Texas educators will not receive full Social Security benefits because neither the educator nor the state is paying into Social Security on their behalf. This leads to the final falsehood promulgated by retirement privatizers, that defined benefit pension plans simply cost too much. The truth is Texas has been getting by on the cheap for decades.

Retirement experts will tell you that you should be putting away around 25 percent of your pre-retirement income for use in retirement. Half of that amount, 12.5 percent, is normally covered by contributions to Social Security. Any reasonably good private employer will put up a match of 4 percent, or better, toward an employee’s individual retirement account, in addition to paying the required 6.25 percent employer’s share of Social Security. This means that these private employers are on the hook for a little more than a 10 percent toward their employee’s retirement. Likewise, their employees must also put the required 6.25 percent into Social Security and typically an additional 4 percent or more into their own retirement accounts to access the employer’s match. For years the state of Texas only contributed 6 percent, the constitutional minimum, into the TRS pension system. Thanks in large part to the work of ATPE the state bumped that contribution up to 6.8 percent a few sessions ago. However, at only 0.55 percent above what the state would otherwise have to pay into Social Security, Texas still contributes less than half of what the next lowest state not paying into Social Security pays towards it educators’ retirements. Most Texas teachers are themselves contributing 7.7 percent, or just 1.45 percent above what they would otherwise be paying toward Social Security, into their pension system. When you add in the 1.5 percent districts are contributing into the TRS pension plan, the total contribution comes to 16 percent. At 16 percent, contributions into TRS are substantially less than what even average employers and employees are contributing toward retirement, and despite being many educators only source of retirement income, that is only 64 percent of what experts recommend putting away. So far from being “too expensive” as some lawmakers insist, the TRS pension system has been an exceedingly good deal for the state of Texas.

This discussion is of particular importance at this moment because while TRS has been reasonably healthy for a long time and has been on track to be actuarially sound (very healthy) within the next five years, those statistics have been based on TRS’s current assumed rate of return of 8 percent. Based on the advice of the external actuarial firm with which TRS contracts, the TRS board is considering lowering that assumed rate of return. In order to maintain the positive trajectory of the fund, legislators will need to increase the contribution rate going into the fund. Per the discussion above, these increased contributions are long overdue, and had lawmakers increased them previously, the fund would be in a much better place today. Additionally, many retirees wouldn’t have gone more than a decade without a cost of living adjustment. If TRS lowers its assumed rate of return, however, the decision to increase contributions will no longer be a luxury; it will be an imperative. ATPE is advocating for this process to take place gradually over a number of years so that the increased contributions, corresponding to a gradually decreased assumed rate of return on investments, won’t be a shock the system for either the state or educators who will both share the burden of increased contributions.

Whether a gradual approach is taken or a more “one and done” approach is used, as is being advocated by TRS, the important thing is that educators stay fully engaged with their legislators, and in choosing their legislators this election year, so that the health of the pension fund is secured.

Making better use of the state’s rainy day fund when it’s not raining

The Senate Finance Committee met today to take up a number of Senate interim charges. Among them, the committee took up the charge to examine options to increase investment earnings of the Economic Stabilization Fund in a manner that minimizes overall risk to the fund balance and to evaluate how the Economic Stabilization Fund constitutional limit is calculated; considering alternative methods to calculate the limit, and alternative uses for funds above the limit.

the Texas Economic Stabilization Fund, often referred to as the state’s rainy day fund, is a mechanism that diverts a part of the severance taxes the state collects on oil and gas production and sets those monies aside to fill budget shortfalls resulting from temporary economic downturns. The fund, which has been used many times since its inception, has in recent years grown to approximately $11 billion, larger than at anytime in its history.

During the last session lawmakers facing stiff budget constraints began to discuss how they could better utilize the rainy day fund, other than continuing to stuff cash into the state’s proverbial mattress. One idea floated by Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar was to take a portion of the fund and invest it as an endowment such that the investment returns could be used to help pay for state priorities, like shoring up the state’s pension funds. Legislators were not comfortable acting on that idea without more time to vet it.

In today’s hearing Hegar reintroduced the idea of investing the whole of the rainy day fund in very liquid assets that would allow for a return that roughly matches the inflation rate and investing a portion of the fund, in excess of what legislators think they might need quick access to, in less liquid assets that would generate a higher return. The Comptroller’s office predicts that an investment of $3 billion, with additional biennial investments over a certain threshold, would within 10 years accumulate to a fund that generates $1 billion a year in usable revenue. In 20 years, that projection jumps to more than $2 billion a year. The idea was received fairly favorably.

One of the things the state has used the rainy day fund for in recent years is to justify credit rating firms’ assignment of a AAA (the highest) credit rating to the state. Having a AAA rating allows the state and school districts through the Permanent School Fund (PSF) bond guarantee program to pay the lowest possible rate on bond debt. It was pointed out in the hearing however, that the rainy day fund is only one factor those firms look at when assigning a score. Another, more heavily weighed factor is the health/unfunded liabilities of a state’s pension funds. Both TRS and ERS need improvement to ensure the state is able to keep its current rating. A downgraded rating could cost the state billions in additional interest over the life of the state’s and school dostricts’ many bonds.

Primary Election Statement from Texas Educators Vote

Texas Educators Vote Applauds Increased Voter Turnout in March 2018 Texas Primary Election

by: Laura Yeager

March 7, 2018

AUSTIN, TEXAS—Texas Educators Vote congratulates educators across the state for turning out in record numbers to vote in yesterday’s primary election. Current numbers show an increase of almost 700,000 voters over 2014 midterm primary election numbers. That accounts for a 35 percent increase in civic engagement. School districts across the state played an important part in the increase by working to develop a culture of voting and model civic engagement for students.

Educators are role models for students, teach about citizenship as required by the SBOE-written curriculum standards, and are legally required to register eligible students to vote. By watching educators practice what they teach, the next generation of Texas voters will be poised to become engaged citizens and strengthen democracy.

Laura Yeager, Director of the Texas Educators Vote project, said, “It is heartwarming to see the excitement and engagement of teachers, principals, superintendents, trustees, parents, and all citizens across the state exercising their role in our democracy and modeling civic engagement for our children.”

Educators have been undeterred by continuous and ongoing efforts by powerful allied groups trying to intimidate them from turning out to vote.

“We admire the resilience of Texas educators and their steadfast devotion to their responsibilities to students, communities, and the State of Texas by staying true to their rights and responsibilities as members of a participatory democracy,” added Yeager.

A culture of voting depends on citizens participating in each and every election. Texas Educators Vote encourages educators and all Texans to remain engaged and to vote in the May run-off elections and the November General Election.

# # #

Texas Educators Vote can be contacted at (512) 423-7584 or info@texaseducatorsvote.com

Wrapping the Texas Primary Election

While dissecting yesterday’s election has only just begun, here are two immediate takeaways from last night.

First, turnout was up, and at least some — if not a lot — of that increased turnout was due to more educators embracing a culture of voting. Roughly 689,000 more Texans cast votes as compared to the last non-presidential primary in 2014. Approximately 200,000 more people cast a ballot in the Republican primary and just shy of 500,000 more people cast a ballot in the Democratic primary. Efforts by school districts, groups like Texas Educators Vote and Texans for Public Education, and many, many individual teachers created an energy which has unquestionably begun to translate into increased voter participation among the educator population. Educators should be proud of taking this first step, and should strive to continue to have even better engagement in future elections, including the upcoming runoff elections in many districts and the general election this fall.

The second takeaway: It was a good night to be an incumbent. With rare exceptions and regardless of partisanship or ideology, if you were an officeholder going into yesterday’s primary, you were still your party’s nominee coming out of the primary. Of the 59 contested races for a Texas House, Senate, State Board of Education, or statewide elected position where an incumbent was running against one or more challengers, the incumbent won in 50. That total increases to 51 if you count former longtime House member Trey Martinez Fisher, who won a primary against the current incumbent, as an incumbent. Two more incumbents could still prevail in the runoff election in May.

How did ATPE do?

Of the candidates the ATPE PAC invested in 72 percent won outright and another 8 percent are headed into runoffs as the top vote getters. Only 20 percent of the candidates ATPE PAC supported, including four challengers: Scott Milder, Jim Largent, Clint Bedsole, and James Wilson, did not prevail, despite running valiant races in defense of public education. Those are phenomenal win loss numbers for any PAC.

After a brief rest, ATPE and our pro-education allies will turn our attention the May 22 primary runoffs. But for today, congratulations to the winning candidates, condolences to those who did not prevail, good luck to those moving on to round two, and the most heartfelt of thanks to all of those Texans, including thousands upon thousands of active and retired educators, who took on their civic duty as voters!

For a complete list of results visit the Texas Secretary of State’s website.

Republican primary results can be found at this page.

Democratic primary results can be found at this page.

Why March 6 Matters: Healthcare

Early voting is underway NOW for the March 6 Texas primary elections, so we’re taking a look at some of the reasons why it’s so important that educators vote in this election! Today, we’re taking a closer look at healthcare for active and retired educators.


In our first post of this series we examined teacher pay, which lags behind the national average. While paychecks are a major concern, Texas also spends less than any other state on employee benefits, funding them only at about $967 per pupil, which includes the cost of health insurance. In fact, Texas spends less than our neighboring states Oklahoma and New Mexico, which are both under the national average as well but are spending $1,505 and $1,905 per pupil respectively, despite having significantly less wealth per capita than Texas (U.S. Census Bureau, Public Education Finances: 2014, G14-ASPEF, released May 2016).

The ever-increasing amount of money being taken out of educators’ paychecks for healthcare is primarily due to the fact that state funding and state-mandated district funding for health insurance, including the TRS-ActiveCare plan used by many districts for their employees, has remained unchanged since the program first began some 17 years ago.

When the Legislature first decided to subsidize teacher health insurance premiums back in 2001, the $225 contribution for each employee (made up of $75 from the state and $150 from the school district) was in line with what private employers were paying toward healthcare for their employees. Since that time, health insurance inflation generally has been between eight and ten percent per year, and educator premiums have increased more than 250 percent. Also during that time frame, many private employers have increased what they pay toward employee health insurance premiums, but Texas’s funding of the healthcare program for public school employees has fallen way behind.

Legislative inaction has now led to an insurance program for school district employees that is more burdensome than beneficial, and for many educators, it amounts to a pay cut year after year. Back In November 2014, the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) released its TRS-Care Sustainability and TRS-ActiveCare Affordability Study that was commissioned by the 83rd legislature. It outlined numerous options for lawmakers to consider in dealing with the looming healthcare crisis for educators. Despite those recommendations, the legislature has failed to address exploding healthcare costs for active employees.

One reason the legislature has neglected to address healthcare costs for active employees, including during the most recent 2017 legislative sessions, is the sad fact that the state’s health insurance program for retired educators, TRS-Care, is in even worse shape. After years of inadequately funding retirees’ health insurance, the legislature has now faced back-to-back sessions in which the program was at risk of running out of money and collapsing in on itself —a prospect that would leave hundreds of thousands of retired educators with no health insurance, dramatically limiting their access to healthcare when they most need it.

Back in 2015, the 84th Texas legislature opted not to address the funding formulas that determine how our state pays for TRS-Care. Instead, they made a $700 million supplemental appropriation to keep TRS-Care afloat for one more budget cycle.

By the time the 85th legislature arrived in Austin in January 2017, the TRS-Care shortfall had ballooned to $1.2 billion. Again, lawmakers were unwilling to address the underlying funding formulas, and they similarly declined to make even a one-time appropriation to cover the full cost. Instead, the Senate under the guidance of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Sen. Joan Huffman, who chaired the Senate Committee on State Affairs that oversees TRS, pushed forward a plan that cut the cost of TRS-Care to the state by shifting more costs to retirees.

It’s worth nothing that retired educators have not seen a cost of living adjustment to increase their pensions for over a decade, during which time they’ve also had to endure dramatic reductions in their healthcare benefits as a result of restructuring of the health insurance plan. That combination of dwindling purchasing power due to the effects of inflation on stagnant pension payments and crushing new healthcare costs caused such an outcry from retired educators that by the time legislators came back to Austin in the summer of 2017 for a special session, they felt compelled to put a modest amount of one-time extra dollars into the system to temporarily soften the blow of the impending changes to TRS-Care. However, those additional one-time funds were only a short-term band-aid on a much larger problem that remains.

Even with the draconian measures taken by the 85th legislature, resulting in significant rate hikes for many plan participants, TRS-Care is projected still to have a funding shortfall that will have to be addressed by the 86th legislature. In other words, lawmakers must act in 2019 if TRS-Care is to continue to exist for retired educators

Finding real solutions to the crisis of access to affordable healthcare for the state’s active and retired educators is a complex and expensive task. It cannot and will not be achieved by legislators whose singular priority is creating the appearance of cutting state spending without solving the problems faced by our state’s more than 1 million active and retired school employees. The elections that will determine who occupies those critical legislative seats and will have the power to decide the future of healthcare funding for educators are happening right now. Active and retired public school employees who have dedicated their lives to serving and educating our 5.4 million young Texans have the power to shape the outcome of this battle simply by voting in the 2018 primaries.


Go to the CANDIDATES section of our Teach the Vote website to find out where officeholders and candidates in your area stand on school finance and other public education issues. Because voting districts in Texas are politically gerrymandered, most elections are decided in the party primary instead of the November general election. That’s why it is so important to vote in the primary election. Registered voters can cast their ballot in either the Republican or Democratic primary, regardless of how you voted last time.

Remind your colleagues also about the importance of voting in the primary and making informed choices at the polls. Keep in mind that it is illegal to use school district resources to communicate information that supports or opposes specific candidates or ballot measures, but there is no prohibition on sharing nonpartisan resources and general “get out of the vote” reminders about the election.

Early voting in the 2018 primaries runs Tuesday, Feb. 20, through Friday, March 2. Election day is March 6, but there’s no reason to wait. Get out there and use your educator voice by casting your vote TODAY!

Answering your questions on 2018 Texas primary ballot propositions

Texas primary elections are slated for March 6, 2018. In addition to voting for candidates, primary voters will weigh in on a number of ballot propositions. As we shared with you recently on our Teach the Vote blog, these primary ballot propositions are not the same as constitutional referenda or local propositions. The primary ballot measures laid out by each party do not have any force of law, but are instead used by the Republican and Democratic parties to help develop each party’s state platform, or the list of things the party and its members generally believe in and are working toward making into law.

Each of these two parties has more than ten ballot propositions they are putting up for voters to consider in 2018, and some of the propositions have implications for public education. Several ATPE members have asked us to provide additional background on the propositions and guidance on where voters may find additional information about what they mean.

Education-related issues included in Republican party ballot propositions:

If you are voting in the Republican primary, your first non-binding proposition on the ballot asks whether “Texas should replace the property tax system with an appropriate consumption tax equivalent.” One blog reader asked ATPE for a layman’s explanation of the proposition. According to additional information on the Texas Republican Party’s website, Proposition #1 relates to an existing plank in the state party’s 2016 platform that called for replacing the property tax system with another form of taxation, but not an income tax. The party’s delegates in 2016 preferred a tax that would be based on how much an individual or business consumes. The most commonly known form of consumption tax is sales tax. Under current law, the bulk of funding for Texas public education is generated locally through property taxes. Accordingly, we believe this proposition from the Texas Republican Party contemplates funding Texas public schools with higher sales taxes or some other form of more variable consumption tax in lieu of property taxes.

What would be required to eliminate the property tax by increasing the sales tax? In 2016, sales taxes generated $36 billion in state and local revenue, while property taxes generated more than $56 billion. According to the non-profit Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, the state sales tax would have to be raised from 6.25 to 23 percent, using the current tax base, to make up for revenue lost from eliminating the property tax. If you expanded the sales tax base by taxing things like groceries, gas, water, medicine, and electric bills, as well as adding sales tax for services like those provided by doctors, lawyers, and architects, Texas would still have to raise the state sales tax to at least 15 percent in order for sales taxes to replace the current revenue from property taxes. When you add on the 2 percent local sales tax, you would end up with a total sales tax range of 17 to 25 percent.

Republican primary voters will also see a proposition on their ballot that pertains to paying for private or home schools. The Texas Republican Party’s Proposition #5 asks whether or not “Texas families should be empowered to choose from public, private, charter, or homeschool options for their children’s education, using tax credits or exemptions without government constraints or intrusion.” Some members have asked ATPE what this proposition means. Under current law, Texas families can already “choose from public, private, charter, or homeschool options for their children’s education.” Current laws at the state and federal level also enforce very little regulation on private schools, while homeschools exist with almost no government regulation. On the other hand, traditional public schools and public charter schools are considerably more regulated and are both subject to the state accountability system while being made available to students at no direct cost to their parents. Since Texas families already have school choice under the law, this ballot proposition seemingly seeks input on whether or not the state should create some new form of voucher system that would fund private and or homeschool settings without attaching any accountability (“government constraints or intrusion”) to those public funds.

Another GOP ballot measure that mentions public schools this year is Proposition #6, which reads, “Texas should protect the privacy and safety of women and children in spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers in all Texas schools and government buildings.” As with the first ballot measure discussed above, you have to compare this language to current law in order to unpack what the measure is actually proposing.

Texas already has multiple laws that protect women and children (and men for that matter) from harassment, assault, rape, murder, child abuse, and other specific crimes, whether those crimes occur in a bathroom, locker room, shower, or anywhere else. According to the Texas Republican Party’s voter guide explaining its 2018 ballot, this particular proposition is aimed at protecting against “some schools” that the party’s leaders say have “tried to allow boys to have access to girls’ private areas, including school showers and restrooms.” This proposition revisits the subject matter of some controversial bills that were filed during the 2017 legislative sessions but did not pass regarding school district policies on bathroom usage by transgender children. Texas does not have a state law prohibiting transgender children from entering a restroom matching the gender with which they identify. Currently, school districts or individual campuses set policies locally to determine how to address individual student situations and requests from families. This ballot proposition appears to contemplate whether or not there should be a single state law that supersedes any local policies.

A final GOP ballot measure that would impact public schools and other local entities has to do with property tax revenue. Proposition #10 reads, “To slow the growth of property taxes, yearly revenue increases should be capped at 4%, with increases in excess of 4% requiring voter approval.” To address questions about what this proposition means, it’s helpful to consider how local school funding is currently generated and what types of tax increases require voter approval under existing law.

About two-thirds of the money used to pay for local schools is derived from local property tax collections. As a result, any significant change to the property tax system is likely to affect school funding. Unlike most other local entities, the vast majority of schools are already subject to rollback elections if school district trustees choose to raise their local tax rate above current levels. This 2018 Republican party ballot proposition, however, speaks to revenue, which is a combination of tax rates and property values. Currently, if a school district’s revenue increases due to a rise in property values, and not because of an increase in the property tax rate, the district does not have to conduct a rollback election. Under a four percent revenue cap that is being proposed by the Texas Republican Party leadership, school districts would have to conduct a rollback election every time their revenue from increased property values exceeds four percent. It’s worth noting that rollback elections are themselves expensive to conduct and are funded out of money that would otherwise be spent by the school district educating students. This proposition contemplates that if voters do not approve of the increase in revenue, the district would likely have to decrease its property tax rate in order to bring down its total revenue increase to four percent or less.

As a side note, the Texas legislature has used increases in local property values to offset its own decreases in per-pupil state funding for more than a decade. This is why the ratio of state to local public education spending has gone from roughly 50/50 about ten years ago to 38/62 (or less) by 2019.

Education-related issues included in Democratic party ballot propositions:

If you are voting in the Democratic primary this year, your ballot will include Proposition #1 asking, “Should everyone in Texas have the right to quality public education from pre-k to 12th grade, and affordable college and career training without the burden of crushing student loan debt?” According to the Texas Democratic Party, the ballot measure is one of a set of propositions dubbed by party leaders as “The Texas Bill of Rights; 12 Big, Bold Ideas to Save Texas.”

Focusing on the pre-K through 12th grade portion of the language in this first proposition, it is unclear by the ballot language itself exactly what specific policies the Democratic party is attaching to ensuring each Texan’s “right to a quality public education.” There are dozens, if not hundreds, of potential initiatives that could fall under ensuring a quality education for every Texan. However, a closer look at the party’s 2016 state platform reveals that the party believes, “Every child should have access to an educational program that values highly skilled teachers and encourages critical thinking and creativity, without the harmful impact of high stakes standardized testing.” The party’s 2016 platform also contains several specific recommendations for funding Texas public schools, reducing recapture, ensuring that all mandates are funded, opposing using public tax dollars for private schools, prioritizing resources for pre-Kindergarten, addressing teacher quality through higher pay and teacher certification standards, reducing high-stakes testing, and other initiatives.

 

Click here to view the complete set of nonbinding propositions for the Republican and Democratic primary ballots in the 2018 primary election. For additional information about individual propositions, ATPE encourages you to check out the websites of the Texas Democratic Party and Republican Party. Remember that it is against the law for educators to use school district resources to communicate support or opposition for a ballot measure or candidate, but you can share nonpartisan and general information about the elections and the importance of voting.

Be an informed voter and use your educator voice to share input on your party’s platform. Get out and vote in the 2018 Texas primaries!