Public Education Policy and Position

Legislative Pillars & Commitments

MISSION: SECURING THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION.

As a business veteran and parent, my legislative priority is to restore fiscal stability, local control, and equitable funding to the 12 Independent School Districts serving House District 58. I am committed to being a bridge between our local campuses and the Capitol, ensuring that the needs of Region 11 students—not political agendas—drive our education policy. No funding shell games which shift stable funding and accountability from local school districts to unaffordable sales taxes or unreliable budget surplus funds.

1. Durable, Inflation-Adjusted Funding

  • Adjustment of the Basic Allotment: The current basic allotment has failed to keep pace with the 23%+ inflation seen since 2019. I will fight to raise the Basic Allotment significantly to ensure districts can cover rising costs in utilities, transportation, and insurance without draining their reserves.

  • Enrollment-Based Funding: I support transitioning from Average Daily Attendance (ADA) to Enrollment-Based Funding. Our districts plan budgets and hire staff based on enrollment; the state should fund them accordingly.

  • Opposing the "Shell Game": I am adamantly opposed to replacing stable local property tax revenue with volatile "Rainy Day" or state surplus funds. We must protect the local tax base to avoid a repeat of the 2011 funding crisis.

2. Defense of Local Control

  • Empowering Local Boards: Decisions about curriculum, safety, and staffing are best made by the locally elected trustees who answer to our neighbors, not by state-level appointees.

  • Opposing Unfunded Mandates: I will vote against any new state requirements (such as armed security or technology mandates) that do not come with 100% state-funded allotments to cover their implementation.

3. Protecting Public Dollars (Anti-Voucher/TEFA)

  • Opposition to TEFA: I am 100% opposed to the Texas Education Freedom Accounts (TEFA) and any other voucher/ESA program that siphons taxpayer dollars to private entities.

  • Accountability Gap: Private schools receiving public funds lack the transparency and rigorous accountability standards required of our ISDs. I will fight to keep public funds in public schools.

  • Read more below in the next section to find out why TEFA is a bad idea for public education in District 58!

4. Teacher Recruitment & Retention

  • Sustainable Pay Raises: I will champion permanent, formula-based salary increases for all school personnel, ensuring that educators in rural and suburban districts remain competitive with major metropolitan areas.

  • Removing Barriers: I support funding for teacher certification fees and streamlining pathways for those entering the profession to address the critical shortage in SPED and secondary math/science.

WHY HD 58 NEEDS A NEW VOICE

The current legislative trajectory threatens the long-term viability of our mid-sized and rural districts. While the state reports record surpluses, our schools are facing staff layoffs and campus closures. I will be a vote for reciprocal accountability: if the state demands excellence from our schools, the state must be accountable for providing the resources to achieve it.

Contact Chris Oldham: 📧 Email: oldham4texas@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.oldham4texas.com 📱 Phone: 214-608-5970

The Texas Education Freedom Accounts (TEFA) Program

Below are the main controversies and arguments against this program which pits advocates of parental choice against proponents of public school stability (information provided by Gemini):

1. 📉 Impact on Public School Funding

This is the most significant and often-cited concern.

  • The Argument: The program is designed as a "money follows the child" model. When a student leaves a public school district to use an ESA for private school, the public school loses the state funding tied to that student's attendance (the state's basic allotment).

  • The Fear: Since Texas public schools are already facing budget shortfalls and haven't had a significant increase in the basic per-student funding since 2019, critics argue that diverting state funds to private schools will financially cripple public school districts. This impact is expected to be especially severe for rural districts and those in low-income areas, which serve as major community hubs and employers but often lack private school options.

  • The Cost: Estimates from groups like Every Texan suggest the program's cost could reach $2.25 billion if just 5% of students leave, and potentially $4 billion per year by 2030. This money, critics argue, is being spent on a new system instead of being used to increase funding for the 5.5 million students remaining in the public system.

2. ✝️ Lack of Accountability and Oversight

Opponents argue that taxpayer dollars going to private entities should require the same level of transparency as public schools.

  • Financial and Academic Accountability: Private schools are not required to adhere to the same transparency laws (like the Open Meetings Act), curriculum requirements, or financial reporting standards as public schools. While the students must take a nationally norm-referenced test, the schools themselves are not graded by the state using the same accountability system (like the STAAR-based A-F ratings) applied to public schools.

  • Religious Freedom Concerns: The vast majority of private schools in Texas have a religious affiliation. Critics argue that using public tax dollars to fund religious education, which is permitted under the program, violates the spirit of the state Constitution's duty to maintain a public, secular school system and forces taxpayers to fund religious instruction they may not agree with.

3. 🎯 Who Really Benefits?

Concerns exist that the program will not primarily benefit the low-income students it claims to serve.

  • The "Already Private" Subsidy: Many studies in other states show that a large percentage of voucher recipients are students already enrolled in private school, effectively using public funds to subsidize the tuition of families who already had the means to afford it.

  • The Cost Gap: While the TEFA provides a significant amount (around $10,000 to $10,200 annually), this often does not cover the full tuition of many private schools, especially those with specialized services or in major metropolitan areas. This leaves the remaining cost to be covered by the family, which critics say still makes private school inaccessible for the lowest-income families.

  • Rural Choice: As mentioned, many rural areas do not have private schools, meaning the "choice" option is often non-existent for those communities, leaving their public schools weakened by the diversion of funds.

4. ♿ Disparities for Students with Disabilities

Despite a higher maximum funding amount for students with disabilities, there are significant service concerns.

  • No Mandate for Services: Public schools are mandated by federal law (IDEA) to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and must follow a student's Individualized Education Program (IEP). Private schools that accept ESA funds are not required to comply with IDEA or the same state laws regarding special education.

  • Picking and Choosing: Critics worry that private schools can selectively admit or exclude students with more expensive or complex special needs, or charge families extra fees for services that public schools must provide for free.

In summary, the controversy centers on the belief that the TEFA program fundamentally undermines the public education system by draining resources without mandating the same level of accountability and transparency in the private schools that receive the funds.