(The Center Square) – State Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, who authored the Texas Senate’s education package, including Texas’ first school choice bill, is countering a claim made by Texas AFT that public schools remain underfunded.

Texas AFT called on the Texas Senate, including Creighton, to pass a House public school funding bill claiming, “educators and staff across the state have been laid off, campuses have been closed and consolidated, and deep budget cuts threatened extracurriculars, academic programs, and the support staff who helped the whole student thrive.”

“State leadership has spent the last two sessions picking winners and losers in education policy, and somehow neighborhood schools never come out on top. I can’t stress this enough: Texas public schools are facing an existential crisis, and we need lawmakers to move with a real sense of urgency,” Texas AFT president Zeph Capo said.

Texas AFT is affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers and the AFL-CIO and represents all non-administrative certified and classified public school employees in Texas.

Creighton replied, saying, “after saying they’d be OK forgoing teacher raises in order to kill school choice last session, the Texas AFT is at it again,” offering to correct Capo’s claims with “some actual facts.”

Creighton’s SB 26 includes the “largest investment in teacher pay raises in Texas history – and likely the nation,” he said. He filed the bill earlier this year, which unanimously passed the Senate in February, The Center Square reported.

It allocates nearly $5 billion to implement pay raises for public school teachers and includes incentives for additional pay, liability protection, and other provisions. The $5 billion is “a permanent allotment in the state budget dedicated to teacher salaries,” he said.

An education package filed by state Rep. Brad Buckley, R-Killeen, which includes teacher pay raises, doesn’t include a permanent allotment like the Senate version, Creighton said. “For this reason, we are in negotiations to protect it,” he said. “With these raises and other incentives, teachers will have opportunities to earn more than $100,000 a year.”

Buckley’s HB 2, which would allocate nearly $8 billion for additional classroom funding and teacher pay increases, passed the House in April by a vote of 142-5.

The House’s Teacher Bill of Rights also passed in April, which includes enhanced penalties for public school students who commit violence or make threats of violence, The Center Square reported.

The Texas Teacher Bill of Rights is “a national model for ensuring our educators get the compensation and respect they deserve,” Creighton said.

Among other measures, SB 26 allows public school teachers to enroll their children in their school’s pre-K program, if offered, for free; includes liability protections for educators so they “no longer need to pay an organization for liability insurance;” provides a “teacher preparation program that supports uncertified educators already in the classroom on their path to certification;” expands access and options for those seeking to become teachers, Creighton said. It also expands mechanisms to strengthen the state’s education “workforce, recognizing talent, and ensuring every student has a qualified teacher,” he said.

Ahead of the Texas House passing Creighton’s school choice bill, which Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law on Saturday, Abbott said the legislature was “providing more funding than ever before” for public schools “and a higher teacher pay raise than ever before in the history of our state.”

The roughly $330 billion two-year budgets proposed by the Texas House and Senate allocate roughly $96 billion for public school funding for Texas’ 5.5 million public school K-12 students. The majority, $80 billion, comes from state and local funds, the remainder comes from the federal government.

Average funding per public school student is more than $15,000, nearly double the basic allotment of $6,160, the governor’s office says.

Some claim, pointing to Texas Education Agency data, that when adjusting for inflation, per-student funding is closer to funding levels from roughly a decade ago.

According to a Texas Association of School Business Officials survey, 65% of 190 school districts listed deficit budget/lack of resources as their top problem followed by low or declining enrollment. Roughly 42% of districts surveyed said they are reporting ending fiscal 2024 in a deficit and didn’t anticipate giving raises without help from the legislature. Nearly 63% said they expect to end fiscal 2025 in a deficit; 55.3% said they will need to make budget cuts for fiscal 2026, according to the survey.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has said that school districts are cutting their budgets because they kept spending based on temporary federal COVID-era relief money.

“Many school districts went out and hired people with that money,” Patrick said. “So a lot of the cutbacks that they’re talking about is because they spent the money on ongoing things. Our funding for education is higher than it’s ever been.”

He also points out that from 2019 to 2025, public school enrollment only increased by 100,000 students statewide while state funding “has dwarfed that. We’re spending much, much more money for roughly the same number of students” who were enrolled in public schools five years ago.

(The Center Square) – A new analysis has found California gasoline prices could rise to $8.44 per gallon by the end of 2026 after the pending closure of two refineries — one-fifth of the state’s refining capacity — and the onset of new state regulations. 

California gas prices are the nation’s highest, at $4.78 per gallon for regular-grade gasoline Tuesday, per AAA. 

The new study from University of Southern California professor Michael A. Mische examined California’s historical gas prices, oil supply and refining capacity, and modeled the likely impact of refinery closures and costly new fossil fuel and refinery fees and regulations. 

“The shutdown of the two California-based refineries could possibly place the Golden State in a precarious economic situation and create a gasoline deficit potentially ranging from 6.6 million to 13.1 million gallons a day, as defined by the shortfall between consumption and production,” wrote Mische. “Reductions in fuel supplies of this magnitude will resonate throughout multiple supply chains affecting production, costs, and prices across many industries such as air travel, food delivery, agricultural production, manufacturing, electrical power generation, distribution, groceries and healthcare.”

“Based on current demand and consumption assumptions and estimates, the combined consequences of the 2025 Phillips 66 refinery closure and the April 2026 Valero refinery closure, together with the potential impact of legislative actions such as, but not limited to, the new LCFS standard, increase in excise taxes, Cap and Trade, SBX1-2, and ABX2-1, the estimated average consumer price of regular gasoline could potentially increase by as much as 75% from the April 23, 2025, price of $4.816 to $7.348 to $8.435 a gallon by calendar year end 2026,” continued Mische. 

Mische said the high delta between California gas prices and that of other states is the result of state taxes and fees, and policies that have reduced in-state oil production and refining capacity faster than gasoline demand has fallen.

“Over the last 30 to 50 years, the California state excise tax on gasoline has increased by 253%, the number of motor vehicles has grown by 38%, and our population has increased by 24%,” Mische wrote. “Meanwhile, the number of refineries has declined by 56%, in-state oil field production has fallen by 63%, finished gasoline stocks have declined by 98%, in-state daily refinery capacity has decreased by 36%, average gasoline prices for all formulations have gone up by 253%, and imports of non-U.S. foreign oil increased 712%.

“Concurrently, a series of regulatory costs that have been layered onto refiners, distributors, and local operators have had a compounding effect on retail prices at the pump,” Mische said.

California regulators last year approved a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which requires producers of fuels that are more carbon-intensive than a rising standard to buy credits from producers of fuels that are less carbon-intensive than the standard.

The state says the program will increase fuel costs by $162 billion through 2046, while creating $105 billion in electric vehicle charging credits and $8 billion of hydrogen credits. 

Most home EV charger purchasing agreements require homeowners to surrender their LFCS credits to the charger’s producer, meaning while homeowners pay for the chargers, energy and property to charge at, charger sellers will get the credits. 

Senate Bill X1-2, which set a maximum profit margin for refiners, and Assembly Bill X2-1, which allows the state to set minimum inventory requirements for refineries and have final say over when refineries are allowed to shut down for essential maintenance, were called for by California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The bills passed during a special legislative session last year convened by Newsom for the sole purpose of passing refinery regulations. 

Chevron and the governors of Arizona and Nevada, a Democrat and a Republican respectively, all warned the two bills would create fuel shortages and raise prices for Americans all across the region, as parts of the two states rely on California refineries for their fuel. In February, gas prices spiked across the region as California regulators blocked a refinery’s repairs for nearly two weeks after a fire erupted as the refinery prepared to shut down for essential maintenance.

In a late April letter, Newsom called on the California Energy Commission to “work closely with refiners on short- and long-term planning, including through high-level, immediate engagement, to help ensure that Californians continue to have access to a safe, affordable, and reliable supply of transportation fuels, and that refiners continue to see the value in serving the California market.”

California Republicans have responded by calling for Newsom to take immediate action to reverse his own regulations, and not pass the buck instead of waiting months for a report from the CEC.

“Your recent letter asked the CEC to provide recommendations by July 1 on how ‘refiners can profitably operate in California,’” wrote state Sen. Minority Leader Brian Jones, R-San Diego, in a letter. “But we do not have the luxury of time to wait for another report while closures proceed and prices climb.”

“Rather than relying on a lengthy bureaucratic process, I strongly urge you to work directly with California’s fuel producers and find immediate solutions that prevent further closures and ensure long-term energy stability,” continued Jones. “A few ideas worth exploring could include investment tax credits, and temporary or permanent relief from certain taxes and regulations.”

(The Center Square) – Gender identity claims won’t cost parents custody of their children, according to a bill still alive and moving on Tuesday from Judiciary 2 Committee.

Parents Protection Act, also known as House Bill 560, is headed to the Rules Committee and next could get a full floor vote. The proposal has a companion in Senate Bill 442. Crossover day is Thursday.

In his presentation, Rep. Donnie Loftis, R-Gaston, recalled parents in Indiana who lost custody of a child “simply because they could not, in good conscience affirm a gender transition that violated their deeply held Catholic beliefs.”

A father in California lost custody of his 5-year-old son, was issued a restraining order and blocked from accessing his child’s medical records because he disagreed with his girlfriend over his child’s gender, Loftis said.

Other parents have been denied the opportunity to adopt children because they would not commit to supporting transitions for future foster children, the legislator said.

“These are not isolated cases,” said Loftis.

Although North Carolina has not experienced similar cases, “We’re making sure it won’t happen,” Loftis told the committee. “It makes clear that no parent will be labelled abusive or unfit simply for believing that boys are boys and girls are girls.”

This proposal would make sure parents can’t be accused of abuse or neglect for raising their child according to birth sex or lose custody of their children if there is disagreement of their sex when born and a potential gender identity claim. Medical decisions are the parents’ fundamental rights, according to the bill. Also, potential adoptions or foster care would not be tied to prospective parents having to affirm gender identity.

“It does not allow parents to abuse their child and try to defend their abuse by saying they disagreed with their child’s feeling,” said Loftis. “It simply assures that the government can’t redefine child abuse to mean refusing to affirm gender ideology.”

Rep. Deb Butler, D-Hanover, expressed concern over youth in foster care being placed in a home with hostile parents.

“To place them in a home with the knowledge that the family is not supportive or thoughtful about that issue is doing further damage to that child,” Butler said. “We are running afoul of the gold standard which is, ‘What is in the best interest of the child?’”

Kyle Warren Love of Caswell County urged legislators to oppose the bill.

“Children should be nurtured, children should be cared for, children should be supported to be exactly who they are,” he said.

Janssen White, director of legislative affairs for the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, said the agency has “significant concerns” about the bill. It undermines the county departments of Social Services and the courts’ ability to “consider all necessary information” when determining an appropriate placement for children.