Texas
In hearing, Texas Democrats criticize school leaders for being too “nice” about their funding needs
Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
A group of Texas superintendents on Tuesday had an opportunity to argue why lawmakers should increase the base amount of state funding their schools receive for each student. But not all of them did so, leading Democrats to criticize the district leaders for not taking a more assertive approach to an issue threatening the stability of public education.
The exchange between school administrators and Democrats came while the House Public Education Committee conducted the first of two public hearings this week over the chamber’s priority school funding legislation. House Bill 2, a sweeping measure authored by Rep. Brad Buckley, R-Salado, would increase schools’ base funding, raise merit pay for teachers, enhance state support for educator preparation and overhaul how Texas pays for special education.
The first day of the hearings featured testimony only from guest speakers invited by lawmakers — which included school superintendents, teachers and public education advocates — while the second hearing slated for Thursday will invite the general public to comment on the bill.
One of the key parts of the House proposal that received significant attention Tuesday would raise the base amount of money public schools receive for each student by $220 — a figure that falls significantly short of the roughly $1,000-$1,400 increase public education advocates have called for in recent years.
During an early portion of the 10-hour public hearing, Rep. John Bryant, a Dallas Democrat, asked district officials how much of an increase to schools’ base funding they would need to address their challenges.
“That’s a very hard question,” said Joe Kucera, the superintendent of the Lorena school district who represented the Texas Association of Midsize Schools at the hearing. “Obviously, we’re thankful for anything we get to improve the basic allotment. I don’t know that I have that number off the top of my head. I know that I’m very thankful for Chairman Buckley to give us an increase to the basic allotment.”
One of the reasons Kucera showed up in support of HB 2, he added, was “because the reality is we need an increase to the basic allotment.”
The answer did not satisfy Bryant, who sought to make clear that the hearing provided schools an opportunity to help improve the bill before it leaves the committee. He then directed the question to Marty Crawford, superintendent of the Tyler school district. But the response was similar.
“I think it would be irresponsible of me to give you a number that would satisfy all of those needs, because we also need to make sure we keep the taxpayers in mind on this too and making sure that we’re not penalizing them, because they’re struggling as well,” Crawford, testifying on behalf of the Texas School Alliance, said. “I think the starting point of around $220 is a good starting point. I would love to see an increase to that. If you want to put something to it, double that and see how it goes. But again, y’all are the decision makers on that.”
Kelly Rasti, associate executive director of Governmental Relations for the Texas Association of School Boards, said adjusting the basic allotment for inflation since 2019 would equate to over a $1,300 increase. But Rasti said she would need to see projections on how the bill would affect school district funding before providing a clear answer to Bryant’s question.
“I think it’s definitely higher than $220,” Rasti said. “It’s probably more in the $600 range.”
Rep. Gina Hinjosa, D-Austin, said she appreciated school officials’ “pleasant” approach to their testimony. But if they want to see meaningful increases to public education funding, she added, they will need to voice their concerns in the same ways they have done so privately.
“You can’t let nice get in the way of advocating for what your districts need. If this is enough, then OK, but you can’t expect us to fight if you’re not going to fight for your districts,” Hinojosa said. “When you close schools in your district, when you lay off teachers, you’re going to own that if you’re not going to come here and fight for what you need.”
The House recently introduced its school funding bill as part of a broad education agenda that includes establishing a private school voucher program and reworking the state’s discipline and school accountability standards. Buckley, the Salado Republican who chairs the Public Education Committee, said Tuesday that lawmakers would spend the next two weeks revising the school funding proposal before voting March 18 on whether to send the measure to the full Legislature for consideration.
Lawmakers have not increased the base amount of money schools receive from the state, referred to as the basic allotment, since 2019 despite inflation. The basic allotment offers districts the flexibility to raise salaries for essential employees — like bus drivers, nurses and teachers — and help them combat the rising costs of goods and services that keep their campuses functioning. Districts have said the state’s reluctance to raise the funds flowing into that pot of money has only worsened their struggles, ranging from budget deficits and program cuts to school closures and teacher shortages.
In the buildup to the legislative session in January, public education advocates sounded the alarm on the dire financial circumstances the lack of significant funding increases has caused. Some lawmakers have also publicly spoken about how district leaders have shown up to their offices pleading for more support.
But Republicans have grown reluctant to increase schools’ base dollars. Instead, they are pushing to direct funds toward specific initiatives like classroom safety and teacher salaries. Texas conservatives have long accused districts of spending too much money on administrators at the expense of instructor pay and student outcomes.
“I think if we had a simple investment in the basic allotment, we sort of skip over two of the most important things we could do, which is to make sure that we keep the best teachers in the classroom, that we incentivize them to stay there,” Buckley said at Tuesday’s hearing. “We pay them as the professionals that they are, but then we also provide the first ever real state investment in educator prep, so we are preparing teachers that are better prepared in the classroom.”
Many of the invited speakers expressed support for the school funding proposal, though they said they saw the bill as a starting point. Both the House and Senate are expected to continue building out their own versions of the legislation in the coming weeks.
Democrats repeatedly asked school leaders at the hearing whether the proposed legislation would provide enough funding to account for inflation since 2019.
“Heck no,” said Greg Gilbert, superintendent of the Santo school district. “But grateful for help.”
That assertiveness was absent in the leaders’ responses to follow-up questions about base funding, which appeared to frustrate several Democrats and at least one Republican.
“If you’re asked a question, don’t sugar-coat it,” said Rep. Charles Cunningham, R-Humble. “Give us an answer, because I can tell you my district … already gave me an answer.”
Gilbert, who showed up on behalf of the Texas Association of Rural Schools, questioned whether a $1,300 basic allotment increase — which he estimated would equate to an $11 billion price tag for the state — was a reasonable ask.
The question concerned Bryant, the Dallas Democrat.
“Yes, $11 billion, I’m ready to put that into public education right now,” Bryant said. “I would suggest that anyone who is going to come up here as a representative of school districts and raise that question, as though that’s too much, maybe somebody else ought to be testifying for the school districts in your organization.”
Disclosure: Texas Association of School Boards and Texas School Alliance have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
We can’t wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more.
Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025.
TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Texas
8 convicted of terrorism charges in Texas immigration center shooting sentenced to decades in prison
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — A demonstrator who shot and wounded a police officer outside a Texas immigration center last July 4 was sentenced to 100 years in federal prison Tuesday, while other protesters accused of having links to antifa were given multiple decades in federal prison.
Benjamin Song was convicted of attempted murder last March after prosecutors say he opened fire and wounded a police officer at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado.
The seven other protesters sentenced Tuesday received prison terms ranging from 30 to 70 years.
“Our issue with this case has always been this isn’t a bunch of terrorists. This is a bunch of kids and young adults who really have a really big heart and really wanted their voice to be heard,” Philip Hayes, Song’s attorney, said outside the federal courthouse in Fort Worth. “It was never intended that anybody get hurt. It was never intended that any shots would be fired.”
He said his client would appeal the sentencing.
“Song, aside from this day, has had an impeccable life. A former Marine. A good student,” Hayes said. “He had a lot of good qualities that were just ignored. The judge went ahead and gave as much as he could.”
One of the defendants, Daniel Sanchez Estrada, was convicted of corruptly concealing a document and conspiracy to conceal documents. Others pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists rather than take their case to trial.
Prosecutors say the eight are members of antifa, a decentralized anti-fascist organization that has become a target of the Trump administration. They have denied any affiliation and maintain they attended the demonstration to show support for immigrants inside the detention center.
President Donald Trump last fall signed an executive order designating antifa a domestic terrorist organization, even though there is no domestic equivalent to the State Department’s list of foreign terror organizations.
Critics warn the case could have wide-reaching impact on protests given that organizations operating within the U.S. are supposed to be protected by First Amendment free-speech rights.
Short for “anti-fascists,” antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left militant groups that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.
Last week, federal prosecutors charged 15 people with impeding the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota. They claimed the demonstrators were members of antifa who conspired against the federal government to block arrests and deportations by setting up blockades around government buildings and throwing chunks of ice at federal vehicles, among other actions.
Marcelo reported from New York.
A free press is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy.
Support trusted journalism and civil dialogue.
Texas
Paxton, Trump adviser’s org win bid to block immigration rule
A federal judge in Texas blocked a Biden administration rule on Monday that allowed immigration judges to indefinitely close a deportation case against immigrants on the same day Texas sued to stop the rule.
The rule, which was adopted in 2024, allowed immigration judges to close a deportation case after hearing arguments from the federal government and the immigrant in deportation proceedings, especially if the person could qualify for a benefit that allows them to stay in the country legally.
But on Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas in Wichita Falls to block the rule with U.S. Judge Reed O’Connor, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush.
The lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice was also co-filed by America First Legal Foundation, an organization founded by Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to President Trump who has focused on ways to limit both legal and illegal immigration to the country. America First Legal Foundation also previously filed various lawsuits representing Paxton against the Biden administration’s immigration policies, which helped derail President Biden’s immigration agenda in his lone term.
In this latest complaint, Paxton’s office said in the 43-page lawsuit that the Biden-era rule “effectively grant(s) indefinite amnesty to aliens illegally present in this country.”
Lawsuits usually take several months to years to settle, but in this case O’Connor ruled late on Monday in favor of Texas after the Department of Justice filed its response saying it agreed with Paxton’s office.
Paxton’s office and the DOJ did not respond to immediate requests for comment.
President Trump, in keeping with his campaign promise, has cracked down on immigrants, using many of the federal government’s resources to limit immigration and fast-track deportations, including undocumented people and others who were allowed to be in the U.S. by previous administrations.
O’Connor has been known as conservative leaders’ favorite judge because he has routinely ruled in favor of Paxton, who has strategically filed lawsuits against the Obama and Biden administration.
The fast-paced end to the rule echoes a similar maneuver conducted by the DOJ and Paxton’s office last year, when the federal agency sued Texas over a law allowing undocumented students to qualify for lower tuition rates at public universities. Hours after the suit was filed, Texas also asked Judge O’Connor to find the law unconstitutional, which he did.
After the law was overturned, legal experts said a state working with the federal government so closely for the swift overturning of a state law was unusual and raised questions about collusion.
The quick resolution to the case late on Monday was heavily criticized by immigration law experts.
“This is madness! Deliberate collusion with a federal judge to rapidly erase regulations without any input from affected parties,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with American Immigration Council, a group in Washington, D.C., that advocates for immigrants. “It’s clearly an unlawful act by all, and now litigants will have to seek to intervene in the already-completed lawsuit to overturn his actions.”
Source link
Texas
US opens probe into fatal Tesla crash into Texas home
-
Los Angeles, Ca42 minutes agoAir quality concerns remain as the Boyle Heights warehouse fire continues to burn
-
Detroit, MI60 minutes agoWenceel Pérez returns home, but when will he return to Detroit Tigers?
-
San Francisco, CA1 hour agoSan Francisco Supervisor Jackie Fielder to return following mental health leave
-
Dallas, TX1 hour ago
Impact: How Jeffery Simmons’ extension could affect Quinnen Williams
-
Miami, FL1 hour ago
Jaylen Brown bidding war? Haslem drove this? All the fallout from Antetokounmpo trade to Miami
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoYour next Uber ride in Boston could be a taxi
-
Denver, CO1 hour agoNuggets 2026 NBA mock draft tracker 2.0: What national experts predict Denver will do
-
Seattle, WA2 hours agoHow to watch Bosnia vs. Qatar in next Seattle World Cup match