California’s school buildings require continued investments to meet current and projected need arising from aging school facilities, changes in educational programs, and compliance with federal and state regulations. Evidence suggests that many students in California attend schools that are in substandard condition. In 2018–19, 38 percent of students attended schools that did not meet minimum facility standards, with 15 percent in schools with at least one extreme deficiency such as a gas leak or structural damage. Between 2015–16 and 2018–19, 108 schools across 60 districts had to close temporarily due to poor facility conditions (Gao and Lafortune 2020). About 30 percent of schools were built more than 50 years ago and roughly 10 percent were built more than 70 years ago (Vincent 2012). Estimates suggest California needs to spend $3.1 to $4.1 billion annually at both state and local levels to maintain school facilities—and more than $100 billion in the coming decade after including modernization and new construction costs (Brunner and Vincent 2018). A recent report by the state auditor estimates that the state will need to provide $7.4 billion in funding to meet existing and anticipated needs over the next five years (California State Auditor 2022). The COVID-19 pandemic brought additional facility costs: schools need additional resources for construction and renovation projects to improve ventilation and maintain safe operations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2020; California Department of Public Health 2021). So, too, has the implementation of California’s latest initiatives, including expanding transitional kindergarten, community schools, and continued use of technology to support teaching and learning. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) funds most operational spending, and it is keyed to the shares of low-income students, English Learners, and foster/homeless youth in each district. The majority of capital funding however, comes from local tax revenues, which vary considerably across districts. This raises concerns that differences in local property wealth drive inequities in capital funding across districts. State funding for capital projects has the potential to address disparities in wealth. However, the School Facility Program (SFP)—California’s primary vehicle for funding school facility projects—allocates funds on a first-come, first-served basis. Moreover, SFP funding is generated from general obligation bonds, which must be approved by voters. California voters have approved five bonds to fund the program: Proposition 1A ($6.7 billion) in 1998, Proposition 47 ($11.4 billion) in 2002, Proposition 55 ($10 billion) in 2004, Proposition 1D ($7.3 billion) in 2006, and Proposition 51 ($7 billion) in 2016. In 2020, voters rejected Proposition 13, which would have provided $15 billion funding to the SFP. Two new bonds (Assembly Bill 75 and Senate Bill 22) are now pending in the legislature. The SFP was established by the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 to provide matching grants for school districts to acquire school sites, construct new facilities, and modernize existing facilities. New construction grants provide funding on a 50/50 state and local match basis; and modernization grants provide funding on a 60/40 basis. Districts fund their shares primarily through local general obligation bonds and developer fees (levied by school districts on most forms of new development). Districts that cannot cover all or part of their share of costs for an SFP project may also receive financial hardship assistance. Under limited circumstances (such as natural disasters or severe health and safety threats), school districts can get additional state funding through facility hardship grants. Previous studies of school facility funding have found wide disparities across California districts between 2007 and 2015 (Vincent and Jain 2015; Brunner and Vincent 2018; Brunner, Schwegman, and Vincent 2021). Little is known about how funding is distributed within districts or the extent to which these investments have addressed substandard conditions in many of the state’s K–12 public schools. The differences across districts suggest that distributions under the SFP for the last quarter-century have been regressive with respect to student need, which runs counter to the LCFF’s rationale and approach.
Texas is governed by a constitution adopted in 1876. It has a bicameral legislature composed of 31 senators, who serve four-year terms, and 150 representatives, who are elected to two-year terms. The governor, elected to a four-year term, may initiate legislation, call special legislative sessions, veto bills, and appoint boards and commissions. There is no constitutional limit on how many terms a governor may serve, but the governor’s power is limited in that numerous officials and executive boards are elected rather than appointed. The top court for civil matters is the Supreme Court, with a chief justice and eight associate justices elected to six-year terms. The highest court for criminal matters is the Court of Criminal Appeals, with nine justices elected to six-year terms. There are courts of civil appeal and hundreds of state district courts, with judges elected to four-year terms. Lower courts comprise county courts, justice of the peace courts, and municipal courts. Texas comprises 254 counties; the largest of them, Brewster, occupying some 6,200 square miles (16,000 square km), is roughly equal to the combined areas of Connecticut and Rhode Island. Within constitutional limitations the legislature may create new counties. Each county is administered by a commissioners’ court, which is an administrative rather than a trial body. Cities with a population of more than 5,000 may adopt their own home-rule charters. The Democratic Party dominated elections from the Reconstruction period that began in the 1860s until the late 1980s, pitting the many splinters of the party against one another in primaries that usually determined the eventual winners of state offices. Within the party the political philosophies of candidates have ranged from extreme liberalism to extreme conservatism. The influx of new businesses and industries in Texas attracted many Republicans to the state near the end of the 20th century, and the Republican Party grew markedly in strength. Beginning particularly in the late 1960s, some conservative Democrats and influential Texas liberals began subtly to support Republicans, whom they considered more liberal than the old-line Democratic leaders. In 1978 William P. Clements, Jr., was elected the state’s first Republican governor since the Reconstruction era. The Reform Party, founded by businessman and philanthropist Ross Perot, also garnered many members in the 1990s. Many Texans have played a prominent role in national politics, and several (Lyndon B. Johnson, George Bush, and George W. Bush) have been elected president. Texas is among the top U.S. states in medical education, research, and preventive medicine. The Texas Children’s Hospital and the Texas Medical Center, both in Houston, and the University of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas are notable institutions. Increasing attention has been given to outpatient clinic services. Although mental health programs developed slowly in Texas, by the early 21st century there were several mental health hospitals in the state. About one-fourth of the state’s population does not have health insurance, one of the highest amounts of any state. Health care in rural areas of Texas is generally underfunded, and there is a lack of providers and facilities. Since the 1830s public lands have been set aside in each county of Texas to build schools. The state constitution of 1876 affirmed the endowment of 52 million acres (21 million hectares) for public schools and another 2 million acres (800,000 hectares) for a state university and agricultural college. Efforts to address educational problems arising from social, economic, and other changes since World War II have brought mixed results. The Texas local school systems, despite minimum standards established by the state, vary greatly in accordance with local financial resources, prevailing adult educational levels, and demands for equal education for all segments of the population. The University of Texas system enrolls more than 150,000 students, nearly one-third of whom attend classes on the main campus in Austin. The state has some 140 colleges and universities, including junior colleges. The University of Texas and Texas A&M University have outstanding graduate and research programs. Rice University, a private institution in Houston, long has been recognized for its high academic standards. Baylor University, in Waco, founded in 1845, is the only remaining university of the five established during the republic years. Southern Methodist University, in Dallas, is a private institution affiliated with the United Methodist Church. |
Which two program areas require the most funding in the state of texas?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 frojeostern Inc.
