Texas’s School Funding Scandal: Why Ditching Property Taxes for 100% State Cash Is a Game-Changer
Opinion / Advocacy – Texas boasts one of the largest public education systems in the nation, serving over 5.5 million students across more than 1,200 school districts. Yet, the way we fund our K-12 schools remains a patchwork of state contributions and local property taxes—a dual mechanism that perpetuates inequities, burdens homeowners, and complicates accountability. As we navigate fiscal year 2025, with state coffers bolstered by economic growth, it’s time to advocate for a bold reform: eliminating school property taxes entirely and providing 100% of K-12 funding through state sources. This shift would promote fairness, streamline administration, and ensure every Texas child has access to quality education regardless of their zip code.
The Dual Funding Mechanism: A System Ripe for Reform
Texas’s K-12 funding operates under a dual structure, blending state and local revenues to meet the constitutional mandate for a “general diffusion of knowledge.” At its core is the Foundation School Program (FSP), which calculates a baseline funding level per student and divides the responsibility between the state and local districts.
- State Share: The state provides funding through formulas that account for student needs, such as special education or economically disadvantaged populations. This includes “Tier 1” funding for basic allotments and “Tier 2” for enrichment. The state aims to equalize funding by reducing aid to wealthier districts and recapturing excess local revenue—often called the “Robin Hood” system—to redistribute to poorer ones.
- Local Share: School districts levy property taxes on residential and commercial properties within their boundaries to cover the remainder. These taxes fund operations, maintenance, and sometimes debt for facilities. Local contributions typically make up 50-60% of total K-12 funding, with the state covering the balance plus federal aid (around 10-18%). This local reliance creates disparities: Wealthy districts with high property values generate more revenue at lower tax rates, while property-poor districts struggle even with higher rates.
This dual approach, rooted in laws like Chapter 48 of the Texas Education Code, was designed to balance local control with state oversight. However, it has led to persistent inequities. In FY 2025, the average funding per student is approximately $15,503, covering teacher salaries, student services, and operations. But this figure masks wide variations—some districts receive far more due to robust local tax bases, while others rely heavily on state aid amid rising property values that outpace homeowner incomes.
Critics argue the system is outdated, especially with Texas’s booming population and economy. The “Robin Hood” recapture mechanism alone is projected to collect nearly $5 billion from districts in 2025, redistributing it statewide. While intended to promote equity, it often feels punitive to growing suburbs and fails to fully address underfunded rural or urban schools.
State-Administered Programs: The Backbone of Current Funding
Drawing from the Texas Education Compensation 2025 spreadsheet—a detailed ledger of state appropriations—the state’s role in K-12 funding is substantial, totaling an estimated $38.4 billion in FY 2025. These funds are administered primarily through the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and flow via targeted programs. Here’s a breakdown of key state-administered initiatives based on the data:
- School Apportionment – Foundation Program (Object Code 7602): The largest slice at approximately $30.1 billion, this is the core of the FSP. It includes $26.98 billion from the Foundation School Fund and $3.11 billion from the Available School Fund, ensuring baseline per-student allotments adjusted for district needs.
- Grants to Elementary and Secondary Schools (Object Code 7601): Around $7.9 billion, encompassing federal pass-throughs like $3.84 billion from Health/Ed/Welfare funds (e.g., Title I for low-income students) and $2.81 billion from the Federal School Lunch program. State contributions add $745 million from general revenue and $397 million from instructional materials funds.
- Payments/Grants to Counties and Other Political Subdivisions (Object Codes 7612/7613): About $434 million, including $168.5 million in federal grants to subdivisions and $194.5 million in state general revenue for various local supports, such as compensatory education.
- Grants – Community Service Programs (Object Code 7623): $43.97 million from TEA’s general revenue, supporting extracurricular and community-based initiatives.
These programs highlight the state’s commitment, but they only tell half the story. The spreadsheet excludes local revenues, focusing solely on state and federal disbursements.
The Hidden Burden: Local Property Taxes Fill the Gaps
While the state provides a significant portion, local property taxes shoulder 50-60% of the load—estimated at $30-35 billion annually in recent years. In FY 2023, total property tax collections statewide exceeded $81.4 billion, with nearly half ($39.5 billion) going to school districts. Projections for FY 2025 suggest similar or higher figures, driven by rising property values despite recent relief efforts. For instance, the TEA reports that combined state and local FSP revenue per student reached $13,405 in FY 2025, up 49% from 2014, with locals contributing heavily.
This reliance on property taxes exacerbates issues: Homeowners in high-value areas face skyrocketing bills, while commercial properties often benefit from abatements. In 2025, despite $51 billion allocated for property tax cuts over two years—including $17.5 billion for rate compression and increased homestead exemptions—local taxes remain a core funding source. These measures provide partial relief, such as raising senior exemptions to $200,000 (effectively eliminating school taxes for many elderly Texans), but fall short of systemic change.
The Case for 100% State Funding: Equity, Efficiency, and Economic Sense
It’s time to eliminate school property taxes and fund K-12 entirely through state sources. Texas has the resources: Lawmakers entered the 2025 session with at least $21 billion in available general revenue and $23 billion in the Economic Stabilization Fund. Shifting the full burden to the state—potentially via sales taxes, severance taxes on energy, or reallocating surplus—would yield transformative benefits:
- Promoting Equity: Ending local taxes would dismantle disparities tied to property wealth. No more “Robin Hood” recapture draining billions from districts; instead, a uniform state formula ensures consistent funding statewide.
- Relieving Homeowners: Property taxes are regressive, hitting fixed-income families hardest. Full elimination could save the average homeowner thousands annually, boosting economic mobility and homeownership.
- Simplifying Administration: Districts could focus on education rather than tax collection. The state already handles major programs efficiently—expanding this to 100% would reduce bureaucratic overlap.
- Investing in the Future: With a $10 billion funding boost in 2025 (including a $55 per-student increase), Texas schools are improving, but tying it to property relief would amplify impact. Proposals like House Bill 9 (exempting business personal property) and constitutional amendments for higher exemptions show momentum toward relief—why not go further?
Critics may cite costs, but with projections of sustained revenue growth, Texas can afford it. States like Vermont and Hawaii have minimized local taxes for schools with positive results. In Texas, this reform would honor our commitment to education while unburdening taxpayers.
Conclusion: A Call to Action for 100% State-Funded Schools
Texas’s dual funding model has served its purpose, but in 2025, it’s clear we can do better. By leveraging the state’s robust programs and surplus, eliminating school property taxes is not just feasible—it’s essential for a fairer, more efficient system. Lawmakers should prioritize this in future sessions, ensuring every student’s potential isn’t limited by local tax rolls. The future of Texas education depends on it.
Council
Refugio’s Government Meltdown: Mayor, Secretary and Three Council Officials Arrested in Two Days
Refugio, TX — It is one thing when a Texas mayor gets arrested. It is quite another when the mayor, city secretary and three current or former council members are all swept into the same criminal investigation within roughly 48 hours. That is what happened this week in Refugio, a small South Texas town where local government has suddenly become the subject of a Texas Rangers investigation and multiple felony charges.
Mayor Wanda Dukes and City Secretary Callie Shreckengost were arrested Wednesday on first-degree felony charges involving the alleged misapplication of fiduciary property valued at $300,000 or more, according to reporting by Crossroads Today and Texas Municipal Watch. The allegations involve the town’s Economic Development Corporation funds.
Then came Thursday.
Mayor Pro Tem Ixtlazihuatl “Lala” Vasquez, along with former council members Michael Rocha and Frank Hosey, surrendered at the Refugio County Jail and were arrested on third-degree felony charges alleging abuse of official capacity involving government property valued at more than $30,000 but less than $150,000.
The Texas Rangers reportedly told Crossroads Today that Thursday’s arrests stem from the same grand jury indictment that produced the charges against Dukes and Shreckengost. Texas Municipal Watch reported that it had not independently reviewed the indictment and was relying on Crossroads Today’s account of the Rangers’ statement.
Under Texas Penal Code Section 39.02, abuse of official capacity involves a public servant intentionally or knowingly misusing government property, services, personnel or other resources under that official’s control for an improper benefit or to harm or defraud another person. At the dollar range alleged in the Thursday arrests, the offense is classified as a third-degree felony.
The identities of the officials involved are not in question. Refugio County records list Dukes as mayor, Vasquez as Alderman Place 1, Rocha as Alderman Place 3, and Hosey as Alderman Place 4. Town financial records also identify Shreckengost as city secretary.
But there is still a great deal the public does not know.
Texas Municipal Watch reported that the specific conduct allegedly underlying the charges against Vasquez, Rocha and Hosey had not yet been independently confirmed, nor had the outlet confirmed their release conditions or upcoming court appearances. The underlying indictment had also not been obtained at the time of its Thursday report.
The town council has apparently recognized that it has a problem. Council members Robert Jaso and Dana Alsop issued an identical statement Wednesday saying the town was aware of criminal accusations against officials, could not comment on an ongoing investigation, and intended to take steps to protect municipal resources. They also said a special meeting would be held as soon as possible to consider whatever action might be necessary.
Granbury, TX – A Granbury political fight that escalated into a criminal prosecution has ended with a jury refusing to convict Eva Royer, a Hood County Republican Party official who was arrested after questions arose over the address she used when filing to run for Granbury City Council.
Royer was found not guilty after facing charges of perjury of certain election procedures and election fraud stemming from her 2024 City Council candidacy, according to reporting by Erin Anderson of Texas Scorecard. The verdict closes a case that had already raised uncomfortable questions about how aggressively local government pursued what began as a dispute over residency.
The case began after Royer filed to run for Granbury City Council Place 5 in August 2024. She listed a Granbury address and stated that she had lived within the city for approximately two years and nine months. City officials later questioned whether that address was actually her primary residence.
Royer withdrew her candidacy before a scheduled City Council meeting could determine whether she met the city’s residency requirements. That could have been the end of the matter.
It wasn’t.
In April 2025, Granbury police arrested Royer on one count of perjury of certain election procedures, a state jail felony, and one count of election fraud, a Class A misdemeanor. She posted bond and was released the following day. The charges were based largely on allegations that she used a Granbury property as her residence even though officials believed she primarily lived elsewhere.
The prosecution focused heavily on three locations: Royer’s Granbury property, a home in Pecan Plantation belonging to her former boyfriend, and a Dallas condominium.
The state presented evidence that Royer’s vehicle entered and exited Pecan Plantation regularly. A security director testified that Royer had a guest pass connected to the vehicle, but also acknowledged under questioning from defense attorney Rob Christian that regularly visiting a boyfriend does not necessarily make someone a resident. He further testified that a guest tag indicated the person was not a resident.
Prosecutors also pointed to the fact that Royer’s Granbury property had been approved for short-term rental use. But testimony established that a short-term rental permit did not require the property to be rented for any particular number of days. In other words, having a permit to rent a house does not automatically establish that its owner doesn’t live there.
Then came the homestead exemption argument.
Hood County Chief Appraiser Jeff Law testified that Royer had not claimed a homestead exemption on the Granbury property. Her attorney countered that the property was owned through Royer’s LLC, making her ineligible for the exemption under the circumstances. Royer’s driver license also listed the Granbury address.
The trial also produced testimony about the investigation itself, including the use of license plate reader technology (FLOCK) to locate Royer. Texas Scorecard reported that her former boyfriend’s license plate had been placed on a “hot list” because of his association with Royer. Police eventually arrested Royer after locating her with Bolton.
And there was considerably more.
Defense questioning raised issues involving city officials, police leadership and communications concerning the prosecution. According to Texas Scorecard’s trial coverage, Granbury Police Chief Mitch Galvan acknowledged providing incorrect testimony during earlier proceedings and acknowledged that text messages concerning the case had not initially been produced despite court orders.
Royer’s acquittal ends the criminal case, but it leaves questions about how the dispute escalated to that point. Why was so much pressure brought against her over the address she used on her election paperwork? Why did multiple officials at the City of Granbury become so deeply involved in pursuing the matter after she had withdrawn from the race? And given the issues raised during the trial about the investigation and the handling of evidence, are there additional questions about how and why the case was pursued? Those questions remain unanswered, and whether there is a deeper problem within Granbury’s political or administrative structure is something that warrants further examination.
Montgomery, AL – The woman who spent years telling America which organizations were dangerous has now been arrested by the federal government in a fraud case involving secret payments, extremist informants, alleged shell companies and donor money.
Heidi Beirich, former director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project and former chief financial officer, was arrested Wednesday in California as the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into the SPLC widened. Beirich faces charges of wire fraud conspiracy, conspiracy to make false statements to a federally insured bank and conspiracy to conceal money laundering.
That’s quite a turn for someone whose professional career was built around exposing other people’s alleged extremism.
According to federal prosecutors, the case involves an SPLC informant identified in court documents as “F-9,” who operated inside the National Alliance, a white supremacist organization. The Justice Department alleges the SPLC secretly funneled approximately $1.2 million to F-9 over more than two decades as part of its intelligence-gathering operation.
The indictment does not name Beirich. Instead, it identifies a former senior SPLC employee as “Employee-2,” describing that person as someone who would later become director of the organization’s Intelligence Project. Multiple news organizations, including The Associated Press, have identified Employee-2 as Beirich. Her attorney, Michael Proctor, confirmed Wednesday that she had been charged in the federal case.
And the allegations get considerably stranger from there.
Prosecutors allege Beirich and F-9 were romantically involved and shared a residence and two bank accounts. Between 2015 and 2021, roughly $140,000 in SPLC donor money allegedly flowed into those joint accounts. The indictment says that money accounted for about 66 percent of the deposits into the accounts and was used to pay the couple’s personal living expenses.
Federal prosecutors also allege that SPLC officials helped establish bank accounts using fictitious company names to disguise the source and purpose of payments to informants.
This wasn’t simply a matter of paying someone for information. According to the indictment, the government believes the financial arrangements were deliberately structured to conceal what was happening from banks and donors. The original federal indictment against the SPLC alleges that, between 2014 and 2023, the organization secretly funneled more than $3 million to people associated with violent extremist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations and the National Socialist Party of America.
The SPLC itself was indicted in April on 11 counts involving wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. The FBI investigated with assistance from IRS Criminal Investigation.
Beirich’s attorney has rejected the prosecution as politically motivated, saying that the justice system should not be used against political opponents. The SPLC has also maintained that its informant program was legitimate intelligence work designed to gather information about extremist organizations.
Beirich left the SPLC after leading its Intelligence Project from 2012 through 2019. She later co-founded the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism and continued to appear publicly as an expert on political extremism.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login