Judge: School finance system unconstitutional

By raising academic standards and cutting school funding at the same time, Texas lawmakers have rendered the state’s method of financing public schools unconstitutional, a judge ruled on Monday.

“As the economists put it: There is no free lunch. We either want increased standards and are willing to pay the price, or we don’t,” state District Judge John Dietz said, ruling immediately from the bench at the close of a 12-week trial.

Dietz also found that wide disparities have emerged between school districts that are considered property poor and their wealthier peers. And he said the Legislature has effectively imposed a statewide property tax in violation of the Texas Constitution because school districts have limited taxing capacity left, effectively eliminating local discretion.

Announcing his decision to a packed courtroom, Dietz upheld all major claims by the school districts who sued to overturn the finance system. An appeal to the Texas Supreme Court is guaranteed.

“Today’s bench ruling is simply one step on this litigation’s path. All sides have known that, regardless of the outcome at the district level, final resolution will not come until this case reaches the Texas Supreme Court,” Education Commissioner Michael Williams said in a statement.

The lawyers expect the high court to hear the case in the fall and rule by the end of the year. If the all-Republican Supreme Court upholds any of Dietz’s findings, Gov. Rick Perry would probably wait until after the March 2014 primary elections before convening a special legislative session to address the problems

Two-thirds of Texas’ school districts had sued the state, claiming that the Legislature failed to live up to its constitutional obligation to provide an “efficient system of public free schools.” Their multitude of claims amount to a culmination of nearly 30 years of school finance litigation.

They all argued that lawmakers ran afoul of the state constitution by cutting $5.4 billion in education aid in 2011 while simultaneously implementing more rigorous “college- and career-readiness” standards.

In closing arguments shortly before Dietz ruled, Assistant Attorney General Nichole Bunker-Henderson said there was ample evidence that schools have continued to improve even in the wake of budget cuts. With the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, the overall passing rates on the new, tougher end-of-course exams in high school ranged from 72 percent on the writing test to 90 percent on biology.

“We’ve done amazing work within the existing resources within the past year,” Bunker-Henderson said.

But lawyers for the school districts said the key measure is the performance of the state’s low-income students, who make up 60 percent of the Texas public school enrollment.

After three tries on the end-of-course exams, 47 percent of the economically disadvantaged students in the Class of 2015 are off-track for graduation because they have failed at least one of the exams. Thirty percent of the low-income students have failed two or more of the tests.

In a prelude to his ruling, Dietz offered a story about a Brownsville elementary teacher who taught his students, most of whom came from poor families, to play chess, and they became state chess champions.

“We tend to concentrate on the deficits,” Dietz said. “On the other hand, the superintendents, the principals and the teachers … who deal with these children on a daily basis focus not on the deficits but rather on the tremendous potential in each one of these children. They give these children an avenue to succeed.”

For the first time in the 30-year history of Texas school finance litigation, charter schools joined the fray, arguing that the lack of state funding for classrooms and other school facilities is unconstitutional, as is the current cap that limits the number of new charter operators. Dietz said that the Legislature has discretion over both of those issues and thus that they did not violate the constitution.

A sixth plaintiff group, called Texans for Real Efficiency and Equity in Education, argued that the lack of competition and state requirements, such as minimum salaries for teachers, render the system inefficient and thus unconstitutional. The Texas Association of Business had joined that lawsuit.

Dietz said the claims by TREE warranted scrutiny by the Legislature but were not in the purview of the court. Chris Diamond, the lawyer for TREE, said he would immediately appeal to the Supreme Court.

Dietz has been down this path before, ruling the school finance system unconstitutional in 2004. The Supreme Court upheld part of that ruling and warned that the system was drifting toward “constitutional inadequacy” in other areas.

Republican legislators have shown little desire to tackle school finance until the Supreme Court has its say.

David Thompson, a lawyer for the broadest group of school districts, including Austin, Dallas and Houston, said after the ruling that he was encouraging his school district clients to let lawmakers know that some of the problems can be addressed immediately.

In particular, Thompson suggested restoring the money in the Student Success Initiative, which financed tutoring and other help for students who struggled with the state’s standardized tests.

Reprinted by permission of The Austin American-Statesman