Everybody is in agreement: the Texas school finance system is broken and in need of a major overhaul. Spending on the Foundation School Program has grown by 268% since 1987 and spending per pupil has grown by 141% since 1987, and in the same period, student enrollment growth has only increased by 53%. Despite this, the state is still in the position of defending itself from lawsuits filed by school districts looking for nothing but more money. Only one of the suits filed addresses the core problem: efficiency.

The latest school finance lawsuit, filed by Texans for Real Efficiency and Equity in Education, highlights the inefficient system of public education in Texas. Spending has increased at a rate of 5 times the rate of growth of enrollment and spending per pupil has increased at a rate of 2.6 times the rate of growth of enrollment. Just from these numbers alone, the state is dedicating plenty of funds to public education, but the money does not end up in the classroom.

School districts lobby endlessly for additional funding from the legislature and one of the reasons they list is regulations on schools passed down by the legislature. School districts must hold an election to raise a property tax rate through a tax ratification election or bond election. Districts continuously fight for ways to raise local taxes and receive additional state funding, and to go around taxpayers to do it. Costly regulations, curriculum requirements, and testing requirements are commonly cited by school districts as the need for funding and higher taxes.

However, school districts already have the ability to self-govern themselves free from the majority of most state regulations. The Texas Education Code allows for districts to develop a charter to become home-rule districts, freeing themselves of many of the regulations upon school districts and giving teachers flexibility within the classroom to meet the education needs of their students.

The one catch to a district declaring themselves a home-rule district is the election requirement. As difficult as it is for a school district to raise taxes, it is much more difficult for a district to relieve regulations and provide teachers classroom flexibility. An election for a district to adopt a home-rule charter can only be approved in an election in which 25% of the registered voters within the school district cast a ballot. This limits the approval of a charter to basically a November election in a Presidential election year. The cost and effort of developing the charter could be lost if the election in which the charter is on the ballot has a 24.9% voter turnout, so districts choose not to attempt self-governance.

The real question to ask here is why is it harder for districts to become independent and limit their own regulations than it is to raise taxes? State law has created an economic incentive for districts to demand more state money and raise taxes instead of creating an efficient public education system through limiting regulations and promoting true local responsibility. If only all of those school district lobbyists would fight for easier access to self-governance through home-rule charter districts instead of higher taxes, the costly lawsuits may have been avoided.

What if your school district had joined a lawsuit against the state, arguing that it was receiving insufficient funding under the current school finance system…and then announced that it would provide iPod Touches and iPads to students at the stunning cost of $20 million?

That’s exactly the situation in McAllen ISD.  According to the Brownsville Herald, MISD wants to provide all 25,000 students in the district with iPads or iPod Touches.  This would be one of the largest such distributions in the nation.  The district’s director of instructional technology says it’s about “transforming learning,” no doubt trying to fend off critics of technology in general.  But that $20 million price tag is what should be giving us pause.

The fact that McAllen is taking part in the lawsuits alleging that the state doesn’t fund schools equally, and that students are at a disadvantage as a result, makes all of this extremely disturbing.  In April of last year, MISD was looking at closing schools because of budget constraints.  Where is that concern now?  Last year there was scare talk in the district over the possibility that pre-K funding would disappear with the state’s budget cuts. Suddenly those kids who may not get pre-K education provided to them because of budget cuts don’t matter as much as providing iPads?  You could also afford 500 teachers at $40,000 per year for that $20 million that the district is so eager to spend.

Education, period, needs to be the priority of school districts.  If iPads will do that, and the district can legitimately afford the expense, okay.  That doesn’t appear to be the case here,  and the district has a history of scare tactics whenever the budget appears threatened.  Taxpayers in McAllen ought to be asking for accountability – if $20 million is so readily available for this, where is it when there are more crucial matters at hand?

UPDATE:  McAllen ISD superintendent James Ponce told one source that “the cost of the program would be spread over three to five years using a mix of state, federal and private money, including grants for districts with low-income students.”  So to reiterate: this is being paid for by taxpayer dollars, no matter how you slice it.

Small-town America, the collective memory that is often embellished, had a unique function that some believe should be carried over as governments grow ever larger and more intrusive.  Providing entertainment, or beauty, or other aesthetic pleasure could be a viable function of government that is small, close to the people, and never goes into debt to accomplish.  When town hall meetings were in the local church, or the local school, and the majority of citizens felt compelled, even to the point of duty, to participate, this kind of function made the most sense.

However, as government has grown significantly beyond its means in the cities that were towns before our grandfathers were children, we need to stop and consider whether aesthetics and entertainment should be provided by our local governments.

Making the news this weekend in Austin was that the Trail of Lights, cancelled last year due to lack of funding, has a new sponsor and possibly new life this Christmas season.  The RunTex Foundation, the non-profit side of the local footwear stores, has a shot at taking the bid if the City Council approves it this week.

The Trail of Lights was cut when the strain on the city’s budget started to get serious.  When it happened, I admit to being pretty cynical – the city was cutting something that cost relatively little, in an effort to lull citizens into believing higher taxes would be the answer to the city’s spending problem.  Unlike a lot of the events that happen here each year, the Trail of Lights was something geared primarily to citizens, and our youngest citizens at that.  At the same time, the economy is weak and was still weaker when the Trail of Lights was initially cut from the budget.  Opening the event up to private-sector bids is a good move, though last year’s sponsor was unable to raise the funds necessary to put on the event (the bid was only approved in August, and the Trail of Lights takes nearly a million dollars to put on).

I don’t often agree with Mayor Leffingwell, but his decision to approach RunTex about sponsorship seems pretty ingenious to me.  The cynic in me is, of course, looking at Leffingwell’s bid for re-election and his Save Our Springs opponent (Brigid Shea) and thinking that he’s smart to offer citizens something as feel-good as the Trail of Lights as a carrot for votes.  Even if that’s the case (and let’s face it, that’s smart politics), getting the Trail of Lights back this year will be a good way to bring back some of Austin’s charm.  Privatizing the affair also gives the city some breathing room – no more having to cut the event out of the budget or dither over whether we can afford it later.

But this does give us reason to have a civil discussion about whether essential services are the only thing a government should ever fund, or if there’s a place in government for providing entertainment as well.  I’m not universally opposed to things like the Trail of Lights.  I do think, however, that when you find that government is more in debt every year, with no end in sight, and you can’t make ends meet with the funds you have on hand – this describes most government, but especially Austin right now – then you need to step away and do just what is absolutely essential.  The days of the town hall meetings in the local church are long since past, and there are plenty of entities that can provide a significant good to the public without enlisting tax dollars and raiding taxpayer wallets.