In the meantime, school districts everywhere will continue to raise money on their own to pay for all kinds of basic needs.

Pretty amazing, given that school funding, per student and adjusted for inflation, has risen in something like 36 of the last 40 years:

The truth about school funding

This is nationwide, but Texas is not that far out of line with this insane attitude that increases school funding almost every year and then acts as if the problem is not enough money.

Will the "we're starving our schools" crowd EVER respond to these numbers, or do they hope taxpayers will remain in the dark and blindly believe the educrats and the teachers' unions who claim our funding levels are ridiculously low?

When will people wake up, look at the facts and realize that it's not HOW MUCH we're spending, but HOW we're spending it, or that many of the problems in our schools aren't something to be solved by throwing more money into the trough?

One more thing:

"I challenge people to hang out at my school and tell me where else we can cut," she said, noting a recent parent-teacher effort to raise money for new classroom doors at Prestonwood Elementary.

I challenge Ms. Miller to tell mne how we can be spending nearly THREE TIMES as much per student, adjusted for inflation, as in 1970, and tell me why the schools weren't impoverished in 1970.

Tim said:

"I challenge Ms. Miller to tell mne how we can be spending nearly THREE TIMES as much per student, adjusted for inflation, as in 1970, and tell me why the schools weren't impoverished in 1970."

Perhaps I'm missing something here, Tim, and if so, I apologize in advance. But using the numbers you have provided, there's no way that on a per-pupil basis, using constant dollars adjusted for inflation, that we are spen ding three times as much per student. Double, yes, I'll grant that -- but not three times. You might have a little more credibility if you didn't try to overstate the case.

That being said, I was in a Texas public school in 1970 -- and while we were not impoverished, I am happy we do better for the teachers and students of today. I think I'd have a much better chance at an education today than I did then. I have no children, but I am a property owner, so I actually have a bigger reason to gripe than most do if I wanted to do so.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, Tim, and if so, I apologize in advance. But using the numbers you have provided, there's no way that on a per-pupil basis, using constant dollars adjusted for inflation, that we are spen ding three times as much per student. Double, yes, I'll grant that -- but not three times. You might have a little more credibility if you didn't try to overstate the case.

You're right; I meant to use the numbers from 1960, not 1970, and I looked up the 1960 values but inadvertently used 1970. In 1960 we spent $2,125 per pupil (inflation adjusted) and in 2002 it was $7,661.

And despite the claims that we starve the schools, since 1970 real spending per student has dropped only four times in 30+ years (and each time it was 1.0% or less, compared with many annual increases of 3-5%).

Spending per pupil has more than tripled since 1960 and more than doubled since 1970.

Wherever the money is going, it's not getting to the classrooms, and teachers surely aren't being paid three times what they were in 1960, adjusted for inflation.

So taxpayers need to demand to know where the money is going now, compared to where it went in 1960 or 1970 (for example), because it doesn't seem to be helping. So what makes us this THIS time, giving more money to the schools will make a difference?

I'm not against solid school funding; I'm against a mentality which seems the think more money is the answer when the data make it abundantly clear that more money has been tried for at least half a century and it hasn't exactly improved the ability of graduates to function.

I have no children, but I am a property owner, so I actually have a bigger reason to gripe than most do if I wanted to do so.

Same here. Our HISD tax alone last year was about $2,300.

An educated populace benefits all of society, so I don't have a problem with paying school taxes even without children. But at what point do we say "enough" to the broken records who, year after year, act as though the problem is always "we need more money?" At what point do we demand an honest accounting of where the money is going, and demand that additional money be coupled with tangible results?

I've looked (briefly) for a list of Representatives who crossed party lines for the debate-limiting vote. Could someone please post the list?

JWilson: Vince has what you're looking for.

Looks like Houston Democrate Kevin Bailey was among the defectors supportind the Republican no-amendments rule.