Carol Arnold, a teacher at the Townview Academic Center, is running for the District 6 seat on the Dallas ISD Board of Trustees. Here are her responses to some questions asked by the DallasBlog.
DallasBlog: Why are you running for the school board?
Carol Arnold: I have made a decision to run as a school board candidate for the Dallas Independent School District. My passion is and will always be to serve my community and give back what has been given to me. I have also decided to run because of the need for “educational leadership” for District 6. My expertise, experience, and knowledge of the DISD educational system will be an asset. I have 28 years of public school education and 22 years in the DISD. There is a need for someone who understands public school policies, procedures, programs, and the environment.
I am in touch and have been in touch with the needs of the parents, students, staff and administration. My service through the PTA, community service groups and civic organizations also gives me additional insight into the needs of this district.
DallasBlog: What steps do you propose DISD take to lower the dropout rate?
C.A.: The issue of reducing the dropout rate is a challenging one. I believe the district has programs in place such as the “Reconnect Centers” which are designed to give students the opportunity to return to the classroom to complete their education.
DallasBlog: Do you support performance-based incentives for principals? If so, what do you believe principals should be evaluated on?
C.A.: Not at this time.
DallasBlog: Are there any changes to the district’s bilingual language programs that you would like to see?
C.A.: I would like to look at the total program before making any suggestions.
DallasBlog: In 2005, DISD’s contract with FedEx Kinkos resulted in printing and copying costs doubling to $12.82 million. How do you propose to prevent and/or limit this kind of waste in the future?
C.A.: In the future, I would simply encourage all board members to conduct careful (personal) research on all major projects before conducting a vote.
DallasBlog: What do you anticipate will be the most pressing issue(s) facing the district this year and how do you propose to deal with it/them?
C.A.: The most pressing issue is that of school finance. It is very important that the district have a budget that will still provide the needs of this district if the state funding falls short. It is also important that a sound fiscal plan be in place in the event that the court does not approve the funding formula provided by the legislature.
SB1 appears to be bogged down in the same issues that have bogged down the entire school finance problem for years: equity and recapture. Property rich districts, almost all represented by Republicans, want a fairly wide level of inequality while property poor districts, both Democrat and Republican, want a very narrow window of inequality.
So what does this mean? Poor districts started the ball rolling years ago with a law suit maintaining that the State of Texas could not constitutionally have a school finance system that allowed a disparity between rich and poor. Put another way: what was good for the rich goose should be good for the poor gander and the state should be paying the same from one district to another. The bet by the poor districts was that the rich districts would rather put more money into poor districts than have to cut their own funding.
The problem of equality is a bit more complex however. It has to do with disparity in tax bases. For example if a district has $100 million in taxable property and taxes it at the new allowable of $1 per $100 of value the maximum rate tax would raise $1 million. If you lived in a district that had only $10 million in taxable property value the maximum rate of $1 would raise only $200,000. For the poor district to raise $1 million it would have to tax at a rate of $5 per $100. If that were allowed the owner of a $200,000 home would pay $1000 school tax in one district but $5000 in another. But that is no longer allowed.
The state attempts to “equalize” by providing “state” money to the poor based on a complicated formula in which all students are not created equal. The assumption is that it costs much more to educate poor kids with English as a second language than rich kids with two college educated parents. Thus for funding purposes students are “weighted” based on certain criteria. Using these formulas most of the state’s money flows through to poor districts.
The Robin Hood plan simply capped how much money a rich school district could raise for their use and “recaptured” the rest at the state level where it was redistributed to poor districts under various state formulas. Capping districts is what the Texas Supreme Court found unconstitutional. They found it to be a de facto statewide property tax (once all districts were taxing at the maximum level which most now are) which the Texas constitution says is no-no.
The Court has never held that districts had to be equalized in their funding only that the state had to provide a level of education to all students that the court could subjectively find acceptable. The constitution calls this “efficient.” The most recent Supreme Court decision hinted that the entire system was close to not being efficient but did not find it to have yet crossed the line.
The new law takes state money raised via the new Business Margins Tax, presumably a cigarette tax, and money available from the treasury surplus and hands it to districts to replace money raised locally via property taxes. That widens the gap between what local districts raise via the property tax and what the state says is the most they can raise by that method.
That does not resolve the question of “efficient” funding, or how big a funding gap is allowable between rich and poor districts, or how much rich districts will have to ship to the state if they exceed a certain level of funding. Nor does it resolve how the new state money is to flow to the districts. Flowing new money through the existing formula system would do more for property poor districts and much less for the Republican districts.
SB1 also limits how much school districts can raise via tax increases. Republicans voting for the governor’s new taxes want to be certain that local districts cannot take new state money and then simply increase their own taxes to raise more money thereby negating the tax break legislators intended – as has happened before. To do this the bill caps local tax increases at 3-cents unless there is a popular election in which case the cap rises to 5-cents. However, if half the extra money is “recaptured” by the state it is hard to imagine local voters passing such a tax increase and wealthy districts are trying to block that portion of the bill.
The bill also contains a pay raise for teachers that teachers say is inadequate and are therefore lobbying to defeat the bill. This and any number of provisions is almost sure to bring about a solid ‘no’ vote by Democrats. The bill also takes power away from the State Board of Education on curriculum matters and that has drawn the ire of conservatives on the SBOE who are lobbying for a “no” vote. The bill needs 21 votes to be brought to a vote on the senate floor. In short, it is hard to see exactly where the votes will come from without considerable changes in SB1.
The Margins Tax has already been passed and is on the governor’s desk but exactly how the money raised by this tax will be used is unclear without passing SHB1. To make matters more difficult, it currently appears the votes don’t exist to bring HB5 to a vote and that bill provides $1 billion in new cigarette tax money. It’s defeat would leave the governor’s funding plan a billion short.
Oil prices have dropped below $70 per barrel. Higher than expected gasoline reserves in the US, profit-taking and some relaxation in worry over Iran are behind the drop. Some analysts are saying today that without any additional bad news from the Middle East the correction could carry the price toward $65 but probably no lower.
DISD taxes account for about two-thirds of a Dallas homeowner's annual property tax bill.
As we did Tuesday with discovering the cost to Parkland Hospital of treating illegal immigrants - more than $200 million - I'm trying to find out how much the district spends on providing education for illegal immigrants. Not meeting a lot of success.
Anyone with tips or info, drop me an e-mail at
Anti-tax folks in the Legislature say “Look Out!” when Texans who haven’t paid attention to what’s going on in Austin begin to understand the impact of HB 4. That’s the so-called “liar’s affidavit” that would affect the sales tax paid on used car purchases.
The bill would require purchasers of used cars – including those who buy from a discount broker or an individual – to pay taxes on the Blue Book or retail value of the car, as ascertained by a licensed appraiser or certified motor vehicle dealer.
The premise behind the bill is valid. It’s aimed at used car buyers who lie about their purchase price for sales tax purposes. But the anti-tax folks say it goes to the other extreme, requiring buyers to be taxed on even more than they pay for the car. Why not then, they ask, require new car buyers to pay tax on the manufacturer’s retail price?
The bill also could spawn a whole new cottage industry – used car appraisers, licensed by the state.
Highland Park ISD is considering setting up its own endowment - pushing to $100 million - that would be supported by private, voluntary donations. The reason? The novelty cake toppers who comprise the Texas Legislature couldn't pour urine out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel.
Hard to see any downside. Heck, if schools were run more like businesses and education treated more like a service than a government entitlement we wouldn't be graduating a generation that couldn't find the business side of a map, much less the countries on it.
A new Zogby Poll finds no ambiguity among Americans on health care: They want much broader use of Health Savings Accounts. The poll found that 70% favored allowing employers to make an HSA contribution equal to the out-of-pocket requirement. Those who have chronic health problems should be allowed greater tax exempt contributions according to 70%. And an amazing 84% want employees whose employer provides no health coverage to be able to deduct 100% of health care premiums. Portability of health care plans is favored by 67% with support highest in the South where 77% liked the idea. With those kind of numbers it should be easy for Congress to act. Right?
The council has no shortage of self-important clowns who metaphorically erect statues to themselves, but Councilman Leo Chaney had to take it one step further. Maybe Mr. Chaney should hasten the day he "becomes a private citizen."