#TXLEGE: National educrats go BALLISTIC over Texas school finance commission

"And he cried out with a loud voice and said, “What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God that You do not torment me.”
Mark 5:7

We've haven't read the school finance commission report, but this piece in the Washington Post is nuts:

But perhaps the most startling feature of the report is its recommendation to use outcomes-based funding as a critical component of the school funding system. Outcomes-based education funding is highly controversial. It is ineffective and can make inequities worse. And this Texas version, which is especially bad, will result in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer with funding going to students who need it the least, not the most.

This piece goes on to paint an overwrought, inaccurate, picture of "outcomes based funding as some sort of boon to the rich.

Enter random Houston Chronicle reporter on Twitter:

This @washingtonpost piece bashing the Texas Public School Finance Commission contains several disingenuous/misleading statements, and a fact check would have prevented bad information from getting published so prominently.

I'll explain in a thread.https://t.co/hs0ApCEGbv

— Jacob Carpenter (@ChronJacob) January 14, 2019

Let's start here: The author says the commission's recommendation to give districts money for kids meeting 3rd-grade reading level "would reward the wealthiest districts, not the poorest districts." To wit, she cherry-picks examples of a "wealthy" school and "poor" school.

— Jacob Carpenter (@ChronJacob) January 14, 2019

In fact, in the aggregate, the proposal does the opposite, as the commission-generated chart (which I've fact-checked) shows below. At current test passage rates, economically disadvantaged students generate more revenue per student under this plan than non-ED students. pic.twitter.com/rudWU8Gzdu

— Jacob Carpenter (@ChronJacob) January 14, 2019

Under this proposal, there would certainly be examples of "wealthy" schools getting more. You can also argue the rewards for "poor" schools should be greater. But it's disingenuous to cherry-pick two schools and use that to prove your point.

— Jacob Carpenter (@ChronJacob) January 14, 2019

Finally, the implication is that conservative/corporate-reform entities have been the ones pushing incentives-based funding. See paragraph below. To be sure, I haven't done a full report on which "side" does it more, but the Obama-backed Race To The Top warrants a mention, no? pic.twitter.com/lvLhJdiRM3

— Jacob Carpenter (@ChronJacob) January 14, 2019

Not here to argue the merits of funding based on incentives and outcomes, or whether the commission's proposal is good/bad. There are legitimate arguments to be made about the commission's work. But at least present a fair description of the proposal.

— Jacob Carpenter (@ChronJacob) January 14, 2019

Oh, I forgot, these paragraphs are misleading, too. Yes, state funding has declined. But rising local property tax revenues have largely covered that gap. Education funding adjusted for inflation has been very marginally rising or basically stagnant, depending on date range used. pic.twitter.com/bAoW3Vv82L

— Jacob Carpenter (@ChronJacob) January 14, 2019

Now...look...this website is not going to support a school finance proposal just because they slap the phrase "outcomes based" on it. The devil in such a plan would most certainly be in the details.  It's doesn't take a genius to see how "outcomes based" education funding could devolve into a standardized testing boondoggle.

It is, however, interesting to note the educrat lobby reacting this way.

Finally, check out the WaPo author's bio:

Burris is a former New York high school principal who serves as executive director of the Network for Public Education, a nonprofit advocacy group. She was named the 2010 Educator of the Year by the School Administrators Association of New York State, and in 2013, the National Association of Secondary School Principals named her the New York State High School Principal of the Year. Burris has been chronicling problems with modern school restructuring and school choice for years on this blog.

Bottom Line: So-called "outcomes based" funding may or may not be a good idea. We need to know a lot more details before we can decide about any specific programs. That being said, for this crowd to be this apoplectic about it this early in the process is intesting.