logo
Clock is ticking for Texas lawmakers to settle differences on $8 billion public school funding package

Clock is ticking for Texas lawmakers to settle differences on $8 billion public school funding package

Yahoo14-05-2025

Lawmakers called it the 'Texas Two-Step,' promising that passage of a private school voucher bill and a multibillion-dollar public school funding proposal would happen in tandem. But with less than three weeks before the end of the 2025 legislative session, additional funding for cash-strapped public schools is dancing alone.
The Texas House and Senate moved swiftly to establish a voucher program but have stumbled over details on how to fund public education. Leaders in both chambers have insisted there is no cause for concern, saying they are working diligently to ensure that Texas' 5.5 million public schoolchildren have what they need to succeed in the classroom.
The next major step in that direction is expected to happen Thursday, when the Senate education committee plans to hold a public hearing on its version of House Bill 2, a roughly $8 billion proposal seeking to tie teacher salary increases to years of experience, reduce Texas' reliance on untrained teachers and overhaul the state's special education funding model.
[Pressing deadlines, unfinished business: Where the Legislature stands on abortion, water, property tax and more]
If the committee approves the proposal, the bill would then travel to the full Senate for further consideration. Passage in the Senate would formally open the door for the chamber to hammer out any disagreements with the House before sending the bill to Gov. Greg Abbott, though lawmakers say those discussions have already started.
'I believe that there's an agreement that will get moving,' Rep. Brad Buckley, the Salado Republican who chairs the House Public Education Committee, told The Texas Tribune earlier this month.
Sen. Brandon Creighton of Conroe, the Republican who leads the Senate education committee, said in a recent statement that lawmakers are making 'meaningful progress on reconciling differences.'
The House passed its own school funding proposal last month. That came months after the Senate began approving a slate of major public education finance bills — the most notable being a $4.3 billion measure focused on teacher pay that passed the chamber in February.
The Senate education committee's hearing on its version of HB 2 comes three weeks after the panel received the House's funding proposal. House Democrats and public education advocates have slammed Senate Republicans over HB 2's lack of movement. Rep. Gene Wu, a Houston Democrat who chairs the House Democratic Caucus, distributed a memo to his colleagues this week characterizing the funding package as 'languishing' in the Senate 'without so much as a committee hearing.' Teacher advocacy organizations have agreed.
'I can't stress this enough: Texas public schools are facing an existential crisis, and we need lawmakers to move with a real sense of urgency,' Zeph Capo, president of the Texas chapter of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a statement earlier this month. 'If lawmakers fail to deliver, we are heading into territory that I'm not sure our schools can come back from.'
[Texas officials' claim that school funding is at an all-time high ignores inflation and temporary federal money]
School officials have called attention to the hard choices districts all over Texas have had to make — from adopting budget deficits to closing schools — as evidence that the state is not investing enough in public education. Creighton has urged critics to be patient, calling the negotiations 'an unprecedented opportunity that deserves thoughtful, strategic consideration — not rushed decisions or halfway measures.'
Though lawmakers are navigating imminent end-of-session deadlines for other bills, HB 2 has until May 28 to make it through the Senate, the last day for the chamber to consider all bills. From there, five members from each of the chambers, led by Buckley and Creighton, will likely work to hash out their remaining differences in a closed-door conference committee. Whatever bill emerges from those negotiations would need a final vote in each full chamber before heading to the governor's desk. The legislative session ends June 2.
At the top of the Legislature's to-do list is figuring out whether Texas will boost schools' base, per-student funding for the first time since 2019 and coming to terms on how the state will address teacher salaries, which rank 31st in the nation, according to a recent report from the National Education Association.
Here's a breakdown of the work ahead.
Legislators will need to sort out whether to provide public schools with an increase to their base funding for each student and, if so, by how much.
The House has proposed raising the funding, known as the basic allotment, from $6,160 to $6,555 per student. That $395 boost falls well short of the roughly $1,300 increase districts say they need to address inflationary pressures that have only intensified since the Legislature last raised the allotment in 2019.
The Senate, on the other hand, has opposed increasing schools' base funding this session by any significant amount. The chamber's education committee announced earlier this week that it would propose doing so by a modest $55 per student.
Republican senators would instead prefer to make targeted investments to ensure state funding reaches areas with the most needs, like special education and teacher pay. Creighton, the Senate education chair, has said direct state investment in those areas would free up districts to use their base funding elsewhere.
How schools currently use their base dollars varies by district, but the bulk of the money flows toward salaries for full-time employees. Districts also use the funds to pay for essential services and goods, like utilities and insurance. Leftover dollars may cover other necessities, like school supplies and building maintenance.
School districts' advocacy has focused on raising the allotment because it offers them the most flexibility to address the unique needs of their campuses, as opposed to money they can only use for specific purposes determined by the Legislature.
Capo, the teacher union leader, has called for an all-of-the-above approach that 'marries the best qualities of both the House and Senate approaches,' including raising districts' base funding and directing some money specifically toward teacher raises.
'We agree with Chairman Creighton that a dedicated allotment for teacher pay, stronger pathways to educator certification, and early intervention and support for students struggling academically are all great ideas,' Capo said. 'The question shouldn't be 'teacher pay or basic allotment increase?' but rather, 'what do we need to fully support and stabilize public schools?''
The House and Senate must also determine how the state will address teacher salaries. In place of a significant increase to the basic allotment — which would largely help districts raise teacher pay — senators want to provide educators more money through the following system:
Educators with 3-4 years of experience in school districts with 5,000 or fewer students would receive a $5,000 raise, while those with five or more years of teaching on their resume would earn $10,000.
Educators with 3-4 of experience in school districts with more than 5,000 students would earn a $2,500 raise, while those with five or more years of experience would receive $5,500.
The House wants to direct 40% of schools' base funding toward across-the-board raises for school staff, excluding administrators. Teachers with a decade or more of experience would receive the highest raises.
[Lawmakers want to expand Texas' teacher pay raise program. Many educators will still be left out.]
Lawmakers in both chambers are mostly aligned in their desire to expand the Teacher Incentive Allotment, a state program that offers pay raises to educators who demonstrate that they have improved their students' academic outcomes. Only about 6% of Texas teachers currently receive raises through the performance initiative.
The chambers differ, however, in whether educators with a national teaching certification should continue to automatically qualify for raises under the incentive program. The House wants to keep them in while the Senate does not, citing a desire to ensure raises are awarded based on school districts' standards and not those set nationally. A Republican State Board of Education member, Julie Pickren, recently criticized the national certification training for prioritizing diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
Teachers go through a rigorous four-part process to attain their national certification. Some among the less than 1% of Texas educators who earned the certification have credited it with greatly enhancing their work in the classroom.
Both chambers want to curb Texas' heavy reliance on uncertified teachers and to offer larger stipends to teachers who enter the highest quality training programs. But they still have to agree on the details of those incentives.
The House recently scrapped a provision in its school funding proposal that would have offered money to teachers who enter educator preparation programs. The Senate's school funding proposal includes a plan to pay aspiring teachers for their training.
Lawmakers will also need to finalize details on their proposed overhaul of Texas' special education funding model. Both chambers want to move away from the current system — which directs funding to schools based on how much time a student with a disability spends in a particular classroom setting — and replace it with a system that accounts for the individual needs of each child. However, the chambers' differences include how much money should go toward the changes, as well as the timeline to implement the new funding model.
The House and Senate are also working through their differences on school safety funding, notably how much districts will receive for each student and how much each campus will get to pay for required safety upgrades following the 2022 Uvalde school shooting.
First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump and Musk aides have spoken amid pause in hostilities
Trump and Musk aides have spoken amid pause in hostilities

Politico

time43 minutes ago

  • Politico

Trump and Musk aides have spoken amid pause in hostilities

The shaky detente in the social media strife between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk is holding following a call between representatives for both sides Friday, according to two White House officials. 'He's stopped posting, but that doesn't mean he's happy,' one of the officials said about Trump's Truth Social hiatus with Musk. 'The future of their relationship is totally uncertain,' added the official, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. Both men have paused their war of words that included Musk suggesting the president be impeached and Trump threatening to cut off federal contracts for the billionaire's companies. But neither wanted to, according to the two officials familiar with the reaction of both men. A spokesperson for Musk did not return a message seeking comment. Trump was particularly peeved by Musk insinuating the president was tied to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, claiming Trump was 'in the Epstein files.' It's long been public that Trump and other prominent figures are referenced in documents released in court cases surrounding Epstein, though Trump has not been accused of any wrongdoing linked to Epstein. But Musk's boast that Trump couldn't have won without his support, including over a quarter-billion dollars in political contributions – is what really set the president spinning, the two officials continued. 'Such ingratitude,' Musk wrote on X after taking credit from Trump's victory in November. The feud came as the president and Republican leaders tried to shoulder through a major package of domestic policy legislation, which could be the biggest legislative achievement of Trump's second term. Musk criticized the so-called megabill for having a 'MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK.' When reached for comment, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told POLITICO, 'As President Trump has said himself, he is moving forward focused on passing the One Big Beautiful Bill.' The relationship began to sour before the dueling social media posts erupted last week. Trump was upset about what he saw as Musk overselling DOGE's inability to make massive cuts in the federal bureaucracy. Then the White House pulled the nomination for Jared Isaacman, the billionaire's pick to lead NASA, which was one of the final tethers in a tenuous alliance. White House personnel director Sergio Gor, who was behind that move, has had a long-simmering tension with the billionaire, according to both White House officials. Musk refused to work with Gor after a March Cabinet meeting where the president told his agency heads they were in charge of their departments — not Musk, who was in the room. That meeting happened after the Tesla founder set off a series of mass firings and warnings to government workers that in turn triggered lawsuits and criticism from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. While most lawmakers and Republican operatives agree that Trump ultimately has the upper hand should their feud reignite, there's never been an adversary quite like Musk: the world's richest man with an online megaphone to rival the presidential bully pulpit.

Athletes express concern over NCAA settlement's impact on non-revenue sports
Athletes express concern over NCAA settlement's impact on non-revenue sports

Hamilton Spectator

timean hour ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Athletes express concern over NCAA settlement's impact on non-revenue sports

Sydney Moore and Sabrina Ootsburg were surrounded by hundreds of college athletes at AthleteCon when news broke that the $2.8 billion NCAA settlement had been approved by a federal judge. In a room full of college athletes, they felt like the only two people who understood the gravity of the situation. 'I'm about to get paid,' Moore said a Division I football player told her. 'Yes, you are about to get paid, and a lot of your women athlete friends are about to get cut,' she responded. Moore acknowledged that her response might be a stretch, but the sprawling House settlement clears the way for college athletes to get a share of revenue directly from their schools and provides a lucky few a shot at long-term financial stability, it raises genuine concerns for others. Schools that opt int will be able to share up to $20.5 million with their athletes over the next year starting July 1. The majority is expected to be spent on high-revenue generating sports, with most projections estimating 75% of funds will go toward football. So what happens to the non-revenue-generating sports which, outside of football and basketball, is pretty much all of them? It's a query that's top of mind for Ootsburg as she enters her senior year at Belmont, where she competes on track and field team. 'My initial thought was, is this good or bad? What does this mean for me? How does this affect me? But more importantly, in the bigger picture, how does it affect athletes as a whole?' Ootsburg said. 'You look at the numbers where it says most of the revenue, up to 75% to 85%, will go toward football players. You understand it's coming from the TV deals, but then it's like, how does that affect you on the back end?' Ootsburg asked. 'Let's say 800k goes toward other athletes. Will they be able to afford other things like care, facilities, resources or even just snacks?' Moore has similar concerns. She says most female athletes aren't worried about how much – if any – money they'll receive. They fear how changes could impact the student-athlete experience. 'A lot of us would much rather know that our resources and our experience as a student-athlete is going to stay the same, or possibly get better, rather than be given 3,000 dollars, but now I have to cover my meals, I have to pay for my insurance, I have to buy ankle braces because we don't have any, and the athletic training room isn't stocked,' Moore said over the weekend as news of Friday night's settlement approval spread. One of the biggest problems, Ootsburg and Moore said, is that athletes aren't familiar with the changes. At AthleteCon in Charlotte, North Carolina, they said, perhaps the biggest change in college sports history was a push notification generally shrugged off by those directly impacted. 'Athletes do not know what's happening,' Ootsburg said. 'Talking to my teammates, it's so new, and they see the headlines and they're like, 'Ok, cool, but is someone going to explain this?' because they can read it, but then there's so many underlying factors that go into this. This is a complex problem that you have to understand the nuances behind, and not every athlete truly does.' Some coaches, too, are still trying to understand what's coming. Mike White, coach of the national champion Texas softball team, called it 'the great unknown right now.' 'My athletic director, Chris Del Conte, said it's like sailing out on a flat world and coming off the edge; we just don't know what's going to be out there yet, especially the way the landscape is changing,' he said at the Women's College World Series in Oklahoma City. 'Who knows what it's going to be?' What about the walk-ons? Jake Rimmel got a crash course on the settlement in the fall of 2024, when he said he was cut from the Virginia Tech cross-country team alongside several other walk-ons. The topic held up the House case for weeks as the judge basically forced schools to give athletes cut in anticipation of approval a chance to play — they have to earn the spot, no guarantees — without counting against roster limits. Rimmel packed up and moved back to his parents' house in Purcellville, Virginia. For the past six months, he's held on to a glimmer of hope that maybe he could return. 'The past six months have been very tough,' he said. 'I've felt so alone through this, even though I wasn't. I just felt like the whole world was out there – I would see teammates of mine and other people I knew just doing all of these things and still being part of a team. I felt like I was sidelined and on pause, while they're continuing to do all these things.' News that the settlement had been approved sent Rimmel looking for details. 'I didn't see much about roster limits,' he said. 'Everyone wants to talk about NIL and the revenue-sharing and I mean, that's definitely a big piece of it, but I just didn't see anything about the roster limits, and that's obviously my biggest concern.' The answer only presents more questions for Rimmel. 'We were hoping for more of a forced decision with the grandfathering, which now it's only voluntary, so I'm a little skeptical of things because I have zero clue how schools are going to react to that,' Rimmel told The Associated Press. Rimmel is still deciding what's best for him, but echoed Moore and Ootsburg in saying that answers are not obvious: 'I'm just hoping the schools can make the right decisions with things and have the best interest of the people who were cut.' ___ AP Sports Writer Cliff Brunt contributed. ___ AP college sports: Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store