Texas’ attorney general is celebrating the state’s surprise win in the school finance trial.
Advertisement
He said state residents had “faced an endless parade of lawsuits following any attempt to finance schools”.
In the 2010-11 school year, before the Legislature’s $5.4 billion in cuts to education funding and related classroom grant programs, per-pupil spending was only about $1,700 below the national average. This one was raised by more than 500 of the state’s school districts.
But the court’s long awaited decision in what the court described as “the most far-reaching funding challenge in Texas history”, should not be interpreted by state officials as a victory in any form.
The system is far from ideal and its many problems were duly noted in the high court’s ruling against the 600-plus school districts that were plaintiffs in the lawsuit, filed in 2013.
The San Antonio Independent School District was among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
“We’re in a very unique area that is certainly prospering and we have an opportunity to transform our schools, and our legislators have always been very interested in working with us on this”, Massey said.
Lawmakers have been waiting three years for direction from the judiciary before moving forward with any public school finance reforms. The lower court ruled that the Texas Legislature failed to increase funds for low-income and ELL students at the same time that it raised academic standards for all students. The court noted that financial efficiency was not an issue with the state’s public school funding based upon prior precedent, while stating that there is no specific number at which funding becomes efficient or inefficient.
“The Supreme Court’s decision ends years of wasteful litigation by correctly recognizing that courts do not have the authority to micromanage the state’s school finance system”, Abbott, who initially led the state’s defense in the case as attorney general, said in a written statement. Abbott was attorney general when the case began before becoming governor a year ago, but neither he, nor his successor, Ken Paxton, argued the case personally.
“As far as the ruling goes, it is evident that the justices felt that funding in Texas education is lacking”, Light said. We have a duty, not just under the State Constitution, but to our children and grandchildren, that the Legislature provide the necessary means to educate our children so that they have a chance to be successful in life.
– May 1993: Days before a court-imposed deadline threatened to close Texas schools, the Legislature forces districts in areas with high property values to share local tax money with poorer districts.
All school districts we were able to reach said they will wait to make a decision on joining any future lawsuits until a new plan is in place.
“Despite the imperfections of the current school funding regime, it meets minimum constitutional requirements”, said the majority opinion by Justice Don Willett.
The Republican oversees the state Senate and is a former chairman of the chamber’s powerful education committee.
He said Friday’s ruling confirms what many in the GOP-controlled Legislature already believed.
“When I read this opinion, the first thought that comes into my head is that the Texas Supreme Court has abandoned its role to protect Texas children”, Bono told reporters on a conference call.
Many Texas districts have also complained about the state’s “Robin Hood” system that sends money from property-rich districts to property-poor ones.
Advertisement
On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court reversed a finding by District Judge John Dietz, shown here hearing the case, that the state’s public school funding system was unconstitutional.
