Rapid Ruling in Texas School Funding Lawsuit

On September 15, 2004, district court judge John Dietz issued a ruling in the Texas school funding lawsuit West Orange-Cove Consolidated ISD v. Nelson, declaring Texas' current system of funding schools unconstitutional. The plaintiffs in this case are over 300 high- and low-wealth school districts united in their belief that the system of funding in Texas is both unfair and inadequate.

The plaintiffs have three primary complaints against the state: the state is failing the schools by requiring higher level student achievement while providing a paltry 38% of school funding; the state has instituted a de-facto and unconstitutional statewide property tax by imposing a property tax cap that many districts have already reached; and the state has failed its constitutional mandate to equitably educate all Texas students, as evidenced by a large and growing achievement gap.

Legal Arguments
The school districts filed as three plaintiff groups and were represented by a team of lawyers. The plaintiffs pointed to the unity of such diverse districts as evidence that the state's system of funding has become untenable. Many district superintendents testified as to the increasing difficulty of providing an adequate education under the current system. They emphasized that terrible facilities, high rates of teacher turnover, and the substantial population of English Language Learners in Texas had all increased the burden on school districts to unmanageable proportions given their limited resources. They also sought to discredit the costing-out study the state had performed, which accepted a 55% passing rate as the mark of a successful school district.

The state maintained throughout the trial that their mandate was not to fund exceptional schools, but rather to ensure the minimum acceptable standard for education of Texas students. To that end, the Education Commissioner testified that the state was closing the gap between minority and white students, and making consistent academic progress. However, even one of the state's witnesses admitted that there were flaws in the education system, as reflected by the sizable achievement gap. The state also argued that it was the job of the legislature, and not the courts, to make any adjustments to the school funding system currently in place.

The "Texas Miracle"
Texas Public Education has faced a seemingly ceaseless tide of controversy and dispute recently, much of it stemming from the 2003 revelation that a high school in the widely-praised Houston district had dramatically under-reported its dropout rates. Robert Kimball, the assistant principle at Sharpstown High School, blew the whistle on the scandal in February 2003, an act that led to the audit of all the schools in the district, which had boasted an official dropout rate of 1.5%. Though only Sharpstown was officially censured by the state, the audit revealed many Houston students that had failed to progress from freshman through senior year, but had not been labeled as dropouts. As reported in the New York Times, Kimball described a system of accountability that subjected principals to one-year contracts and immediate dismissals, leaving them afraid to miss state benchmarks.

The scandal continued to unfold as it was revealed that inflated numbers were not limited to dropout statistics. In fact, long before Kimball talked to the news media, Walter Haney, a Boston College professor and witness for the plaintiffs in West Orange-Cove, released a study alleging that both reported dropout rates and reported achievement rates had been manipulated by Texas educators. Haney's research indicated that the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) was less challenging than comparable academic indicators, and that school officials used arbitrarily low passing standards, forced grade retention, and transfer of students into Special Education programs, which are not subject to statewide review, to ensure the fraction of sophomores actually taking the exam would pass at high rates.

Though West Orange-Cove is not dealing explicitly with the activities of the Texas education administration, Haney's testimony may have served to help discredit the education system, painting a picture of a bureaucracy interested in manipulating numbers and ignoring the substantial rates of failure, especially and disproportionately high amongst poor and minority students.

Outcome of the Trial and Future of the Suit
The degree to which widespread consensus on the inadequacy of Texas schools had been reached was reflected by Judge Dietz's rapidity in making his decision. Dietz, who was well aware that any decision he made would be appealed, returned to the courtroom a mere ten minutes after closing arguments finished to deliver his judgment. The judge gave state lawmakers one year in which to repair the school funding system, or face losing funding altogether. The state's attorney general declared the defense's intention to appeal immediately to the Texas Supreme Court.

Judge Dietz ruled that the state had failed to meet its constitutional responsibility to educate its children, and reasoned that districts' inability to set their own tax rates was also a constitutional violation. Until its schools make meaningful progress towards closing the achievement gap, Texas will continue to be vulnerable to legal claims that it failed to provide equitable and adequate school funding.

Judge Dietz indicated that his written opinion will be available in early October.

Prepared by Nelly Ward, September 17, 2004