Texas House Bill HJR24

Texas 2019 - 86th Regular

Caption

Proposing a constitutional amendment requiring the state to pay at least 50 percent of the cost of maintaining and operating the public school system and prohibiting the comptroller from certifying legislation containing an appropriation for public education unless the requirement is met.

Impact

If implemented, HJR24 would directly alter the financial framework for public education in Texas. It stipulates that the Comptroller of Public Accounts will no longer be able to certify legislation that includes appropriations for public education unless it meets the 50 percent funding requirement. This change is anticipated to compel state lawmakers to increase appropriations for schools and ensure that these funding levels are met consistently, potentially benefiting students and educators throughout the state. Furthermore, this regulation may lead to better resource allocation across various districts, particularly those that have historically received less funding.

Summary

HJR24 proposes a significant change to the Texas Constitution by requiring the state to fund at least 50 percent of the costs associated with maintaining and operating the public school system. This constitutional amendment aims to enhance the state’s financial commitment to public education, addressing long-standing concerns over the adequacy of school funding and the reliance on local property taxes. Currently, the financial burden primarily falls on school districts, leading to significant disparities in funding and educational resources across the state.

Contention

The proposal has prompted varied responses from stakeholders. Proponents argue that guaranteed state funding would alleviate pressure on local governments and promote equitable education funding across Texas. They highlight that a constitutional amendment would create a stable financial commitment that local budgets alone cannot sustain. Conversely, opponents raise concerns about the implications for the state budget, suggesting that this could lead to budget constraints elsewhere or necessitate higher taxes. Additionally, critics argue that tying such funding to a constitutional requirement may limit legislative flexibility to respond to changing educational needs or economic conditions in the future.