“[L]arge-scale bonds can create long-term financial burdens for taxpayers without guaranteeing measurable improvements in educational outcomes,” according to Texas Policy Research, a nonpartisan group.


In a recent article published on April 2, 2026 by RealClear Investigations, titled Everything’s Bigger in Texas, Including School Debt, author Jeremy Portnoy points out some startling figures coming from the state School Districts through excessive Levy and Bond measures that draws ire from taxpayers footing the bill. More on that in a minute.

Similarly, voters and homeowners in the Highline School District are being asked to carry the weight of what could amount to more than $1 billion in school funding measures over the next 4 years, and there is a cautionary example already playing out at scale—deep in Texas.

Highline’s numbers are striking on their own:

Taken together, the district is asking taxpayers to support nearly $1 billion in local school funding—a figure that places it squarely within a growing national pattern: heavy reliance on long-term debt and repeated levy cycles to fund public education, but no academic results tied to the large investment!

But in Texas, where that model has been pushed further than anywhere else, the deficit results are staggering!

When School Spending Reaches City-Level Scale

Across Texas, school districts now carry $148.3 billion in bond debt, plus $88.3 billion in interest—a combined burden that rivals infrastructure financing in major metropolitan areas.

In some cases, individual districts resemble cities in their borrowing. Highline SD has a growing budget of over $400 million per year....that is MORE than ALL the city budgets of the cities it serves...COMBINED! to the estimates of $355+ million! (according to ChatGPT math for simplicity.)

Take Prosper Independent School District, a fast-growing suburban system north of Dallas. It holds $2.4 billion in debt—nearly as much as the governments of Baltimore or Detroit—and is projected to pay $1.8 billion more in interest.

That works out to roughly $126,952 per student. Highline is roughly over $55,000 per student for the new Levy and Bond Debt.

And what has that money built? According to critics, something closer to luxury than necessity. “Facilities for middle schoolers that look like they belong on a William & Mary campus or a very elite and fancy private school,” said Mandy Drogin of the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

The district includes:

  • A 12,000-seat football stadium with a two-story press box
  • 24 concession stands
  • Cafeterias offering chains like Pizza Hut, Subway, and Chick-fil-A

Is that all really necessary?

A ‘Borrowing Frenzy’—With Limited Academic Return

The Texas investigation describes a system that has drifted far from its original purpose.

“What started as a way to renovate aging buildings… morphed… into a borrowing frenzy,” writes Jeremy Portnoy.

Over decades, school debt in Texas has grown by more than 1,000%. Yet academic performance has not followed the same trajectory:

  • 4th grade reading rank dropped from 16th to 37th nationally!
  • 8th grade fell from 18th to 44th!
💡
WA State Superintendent lists Top 50 Performing School Districts...Using OSPI-derived comparison data (from SchoolIntel, which aggregates OSPI Report Card + ERDC data), Highline is shown as #241 of 310 Washington school districts, roughly the bottom 22% statewide (or about the 78th percentile from the bottom).

At the same time, Texas remains just 36th in per-pupil spending, suggesting that massive capital investment has not translated into stronger classroom outcomes.

The conclusion from critics is blunt: There’s plenty of money in the system… It’s being misspent.'

And policy analysts warn that the financial model itself may be part of the problem: “[L]arge-scale bonds can create long-term financial burdens for taxpayers without guaranteeing measurable improvements in educational outcomes,” according to Texas Policy Research, a nonpartisan group.

Highline’s Moment Comes First—Not Last

Unlike Texas, Highline is not yet buried under decades of compounding debt, though current layoffs and budget deficits are to be noted when Levy Funds are used toward the general budget, and 86% of the budget being employee overhead.

The district’s current and proposed measures—levies for operations and technology, paired with a massive capital bond—reflect the same structure seen in Texas:

  • Short-term levies for ongoing costs
  • Long-term bonds for infrastructure
  • Repeated voter approvals to sustain both

Individually, each measure may appear manageable. Collectively, they represent a long-term financial trajectory that can be difficult to reverse.

That’s the pattern Texas followed.

The Transparency Problem

One of the central findings of the Texas investigation is not just how much districts borrow—but how borrowing is presented to voters.

Bond proposals often emphasize new schools, safety upgrade and technology improvements. But less visible are:

  • Total repayment costs over decades
  • Interest obligations that can rival principal
  • The cumulative effect of stacked levies and bonds on individual homeowners and the community

The result is a system where voters approve projects incrementally, without always seeing the full financial picture.

What Is Being Bought Here?

The underlying question—both in Texas and now in Highline—is not whether schools need investment: It’s whether the scale and structure of that investment produce the expected educational outcomes of those investments!

Highline voters now face a version of that same question—earlier in the cycle, but with similarly high stakes: Will escalating investment translate into measurable positive academic results—or a larger, longer-term burden that we just can't carry anymore?

Education can never be "fully funded" when you have run-away spending problems, and no accountability of it failing to improve our students' academic results!

[This article was written with the research help of AI. See our polices.]

Share this article
The link has been copied!