| Texas
Costing Out | Recent
Events | Useful Resources
Historical Background
Plaintiffs in the property-poor and underfunded Edgewood
school district filed Rodriquez v. San Antonio Independent
School District, 411
U.S. 1 (1973) and asked a federal court to declare
the state's school funding system unconstitutional under
the federal constitution due to gross disparities in
funding among districts. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court
rejected plaintiffs' arguments, holding that education
is not a “fundamental interest” under the
federal constitution. That ruling clearly left the option
open for plaintiffs to seek relief in state courts under
state constitutions in which education would be a “fundamental
interest.” Justice Thurgood Marshall, specifically
recommended in his dissent, that plaintiffs seek redress
through "review of state educational funding schemes
under state constitutional provisions," not only
in Texas, but across the country.
In Texas, plaintiffs brought Edgewood Independent
School District v. Kirby, 777 S.W.2d 391 (1989)
under the state constitution and won on their education
clause claim. After a series of legislative responses,
each revising the finance system, and subsequent court
decisions, Edgewood II, 804 S.W.2d 491 (1991),
and Edgewood III, 826 S.W.2d 489 (1992), the
third legislative effort was deemed constitutional by
the court in Edgewood IV, 893 S.W.2d 450 (1995).
The new system improved equity and adequacy of school
funding and included partial recapture of local revenues
the from the state's wealthier school districts for
redistribution to property-poor districts.
In 2001, high-property-wealth school districts filed
a lawsuit claiming that the provision of the education
finance system that limits local tax rates to $1.50
per $100 of assessed valuation now violates the state
constitution. In 2003, the Texas Supreme Court remanded
the case, West
Orange-Cove Consolidated ISD v. Nelson, 107
S.W.3d 558, for trial. Subsequently, plaintiff intervenors
reshaped the case into one that also challenged the
state's school funding as inadequate, and they added
hundreds of Texas school districts to the plaintiff
ranks.
In 2004, trial court Judge John Dietz declared that
“the State's school finance system fails to provide
an adequate, suitable, and efficient education system
as required by…the Texas Constitution.”
He also held that the state property tax system had
become unconstitutional. A year later, on November 22,
2005, in West Orange-Cove Consolidated ISD v. Neeley,
176 S.W.3d 746, the Texas Supreme Court partially
upheld and partially reversed his decision. The Supreme
Court first rejected the state’s argument that
the challenge was a non-justiciable political question,
thus affirming the legitimacy of challenges brought
under the education article. It then declared the system
unconstitutional, basing its determination on the state
constitution’s prohibition of a statewide property
tax. At the same time, the court held that the system
did not violate the state constitution’s education
article. In its opinion, the court defined the state’s
constitutional obligation as ensuring that districts
be “reasonably able to provide all of their students
with a meaningful opportunity to acquire the essential
knowledge and skills reflected in…curriculum requirements….”
Despite significant defects in the educational system,
the court relied upon students’ improvement on
standardized tests to conclude that the state had not
violated the constitutional mandate to provide an adequate
education.
Costing
Out
Researchers have undertaken two “adequacy” cost studies
for Texas education and one, narrow NCLB
cost study. Both adequacy studies showed the need
for increased funding, even though the goal being measured
was only 55 percent of each district's students testing
at a “proficient” level in just two subjects: English
and math. The studies were both published in 2004 and
they used the cost function approach.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs in West Orange-Cove
Consolidated ISD v. Nelson, rejected the findings
and standards of the Taylor
study, saying that it used a very low definition for
"minimally adequate education." In recognition
of this criticism, Imazeki
and Reschovsky undertook three additional analyses,
based on 60, 70 and 90% pass rates on the state’s
student achievement test. Needless to say, the latter
analyses came out with much higher cost figures.
Recent Events
In 2006, with property values rising, the Texas legislature
reduced the maximum rate at which property taxes can
be levied for school operating expenses from $1.50 to
$1.00 per $100, while substituting a gross receipts
tax and a cigarette tax to make up the difference. It
then allowed local school districts to increase tax
rates by up to $0.04 without voter approval. Over 90%
of the local boards have taken advantage of that opportunity,
indicating that the legislature’s 4% cap was probably
too low. There is now widespread sentiment among school
officials that the 2006 reforms to the funding system,
while helpful in some ways, were insufficient.
Useful Resources
Texas NCLB Cost Study Fact Sheet
A
report on school finance and formula adjustments,
published by the Texas House Research Organization (2004).
J. Steven Farr and Mark Trachtenberg, The Edgewoord
Drama: An Epic Quest for Education Equity, 17 Yale Law
& Policy Review 607 (1999).
Dick Lavine, Edgewood: The Supreme Court Opinions (1994).
Last Updated, March 2008 |
