Glossary of Terms:  Texas School Finance


How to Understand the Equity Issue in School Finance, March 1, 2015


What Is Needed to Implement the Equity and Excellence Commission Report


Sen. Carlos Uresti:  A Public School Hero

Jan. 24, 2013

For Immediate Release

Attention Editors, Publishers, and Broadcasters:

In week three of his Session Watch column, Sen. Uresti contends that the Legislature should not wait for a future Supreme Court ruling before addressing the current needs of public education. The revenue is there to restore funds that were cut in the last session and to pay for student growth over the next two years, so the time to act is now. Sen. Uresti also discusses the Senate’s once-in-a-decade process of drawing for two- and four-year terms. The article is for use at will on your news or editorial pages or for broadcast purposes. If you have any questions please contact:

Mark Langford

Communications Director


 Education policy, funding must not be held back by the philosophy of delay

By Sen. Carlos Uresti


He who hesitates is lost.

This wise proverb dates to 1713, from English essayist and poet Joseph Addison, but the idea undoubtedly goes back much further than that.  It capsulizes a simple truth that we learn both from the advice of our elders and our own experience — that to accomplish things in life, decisive action trumps delay.

Unfortunately, the value of this lesson has been lost on some state leaders who are actually advising delay in one of the Legislature’s most important duties — adequately funding our public schools.

State Education Commissioner Michael Williams advised the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday that it should wait on the Texas Supreme Court to rule on the school finance lawsuit before restoring any of the $5 billion in budget cuts imposed on public schools two years ago.

The lawsuit involves some 200 Texas school districts that are challenging the state’s school finance system, claiming it is inadequate and inequitable.

The case is currently before a state court, but the Texas Supreme Court will have the final say. That process could go on for more than a year before there is a final ruling. While it is true that the court may eventually order changes in the method for funding public education, it is also true that our schools need help now.

According to the comptroller, the Legislature will have $101.4 billion in general revenue available for the next two-year budget, almost 12.5 percent more than the current budget. The comptroller also underestimated the revenues we’d have in the current budget cycle, which ends Aug. 31, by some $8 billion.

We have the funds to restore the funding that was cut from the current biennium and plenty to fund student growth the will surely come over the next two years — both wise investments in our future.

But Mr. Williams’ advice was this:  “Whatever funding we look at — whether it is adding more compensatory education money or additional money for teachers — the more prudent action is to wait at this point.”

Williams is not the only one who wants to wait on instructions from the court. Last year the Joint Interim Committee to Study Public School Finance delved into the issue, then issued a final report in December with three recommendations: Continue to monitor the school finance litigation proceedings; Ensure the Legislature acts upon the decision of the highest court ruling; Work with all stakeholders in developing sound school finance policy.

As a member of the committee, I refused to sign the report.

With our children’s future at stake, public education policy must not be based on delay. We don’t tell our kids to wait; we tell them to seize the moment. That’s what the Legislature needs to do. If we continue to hesitate in doing the right thing for our schools, we will — as Mr. Addison said 300 years ago — be lost.

 Four more years

There were no tickets to scratch off or six special numbers to buy, but members of the Texas Senate on Wednesday held a once-in-a-decade ‘lottery’ of sorts that offered a political prize.

I won, along with 14 of my colleagues and a yet-to-be-named senator from Houston.

Senators usually serve in staggered terms, but everyone must run in the first election after redistricting. The  drawing reset the process until the next round of political boundary making, with the 31 senators drawing either a four-year or two-year term.

As some of my constituents looked on from the Senate Gallery — a group of students from Real County — luck was with me, and I drew a four-year term. Although I won’t face re-election until 2016, I will continue to be accountable to the people of Senate District 19, as if I was on the ballot every day.

Senate Secretary Patsy Spaw drew for the late Sen. Mario Gallegos, whose successor in the upcoming special election will serve a four-year-term.

Judge Orders Arizona to Obey Voters and Fund Education


Hooray for Kansas!

Judges: Kansas is Unconstitutionally Short-Changing Education http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/340-187/15529-judges-kansas-is-unconstitutionally-short-changing-education

Rep. Lon Burnam’s Report on Effects of School Budget Cuts, 2011-13


 McLennan County School Districts

Click on the link to see graph that compares funding levels of McLennan County school districts with the average for McLennan County, Texas, the 89 districts in Senate District 22, and with that of Glen Rose ISD, the wealthiest district in Senate District 22.  These data show how disparities in the funding allocations affect the school districts in McLennan County. McLennan County School Districts

Texas Kids Can’t Wait can produce these graphs for any county in Texas.

Texas Senate District 22 (Sen. Brian Birdwell)

At the link is the document that Texas Kids Can’t Wait used to present to Senator Brian Birdwell when we met with him.  (When document opens, for some reason the pages are in reverse order.)  Facts about School DistrictsSenDist22REV

State Makes Its Argument in School Funding Litigation

The State’s argument in the school finance litigation: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-to-go-on-offensive-in-school-finance-trial/nTNpt/

It saddens us to see the taxpayers’ money spent to argue against quality schools for Texas children and that we should not spend money on athletics and other important extra- and co-curricular activities.

Article from Ft. Worth Star-Telegram on Growing Class Sizes Resulting from 2011-13 Budget Cuts


Economics Professor Stresses Early Children Education, Nov. 23, 2012, by Rebecca Bibbs


How Grossly Under-funded Are Public Schools?


How Is the Money Spent in Texas Public Schools?  –from Friends of Texas Public Schools and Save Texas Schools websites:  Short Video based on data from Moak & Casey:


Texas Kids are Poor at Home–and at School.  We Have to Change That!

We have known for a long time now, and neuroscience is confirming over and over, that poverty negatively affects children’s cognition, their health, and their social skills.  Please read this information carefully.  http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/11/07/11poverty_ep.h32.html?tkn=TPBFTeNFGUviFLcMggQlc6idQH76eDg00AIe&cmp=clp-ecseclips

Texas Map Showing Districts Participating in School Funding Litigation Case, via Texas Equity Center, Austin, TX


Daily Summaries of the Testimony in School Funding Litigation Case

Rather than post here the link daily to the summaries, we are just posting here the link to the page on the Moak & Casey site where the summaries are posted.  Just go to it daily (or when you can) to see how the hearing is progressing:  http://www.moakcasey.com/

Materials Used in School Funding Litigation Testimony

The following link takes you to the website of Moak & Casey, experts in school finance.  They are posting here the materials used in the litigation testimony by each of the plaintiff groups.  Tons of good information here for all of us to digest!  I especially recommend the Moak&Casey materials.  They do a great job of showing the academic consequences of inequitable/inadequate school funding:  http://www.moakcasey.com/news/article.aspx?id=3009

Joe Smith, TexasISD.com, reports on Thursday’s (Nov. 1, 2012) testimony by Dr. Wayne Pierce of the Equity Center, in school finance hearing:

Joe Smith: Dr. Pierce Puts the Lawsuit In Simple Terms – November 2 , 2012
By Joe F. Smith – TexasISD.com
Nov 2, 2012, 09:00
Dr. Wayne Pierce, Executive Director of the Equity Center, showed a table indicating what would happen if all school districts statewide taxed at the maximum of $1.17. It was clearly evident that to reach the funding levels of their property-wealthy counterparts, poor school districts would have to impose tax rates of $1.95, which would be illegal.Dr. Pierce used several individual districts to make his points very clear and applicable to one’s local zip code. The following are excerpts from articles and comments made related to Dr. Pierce’s testimony will continue on Monday.

  • The AP (11/2) adds that Wayne Pierce of the Equity Center testified that . . . the bottom 15 percent of poorer school districts collect an average of $5,581 per student per year in property taxes – compared to $7,535 per student for the top 15 percent of the wealthiest districts statewide. That works out to a more than $65,000 per-classroom funding deficit each year, he said. The funding gap persists, Pierce said, even though the top 15 percent of wealthiest districts only collect an average tax rate of $1.02 per $100 of property value, compared to an average of $1.10 collected by the bottom 15 percent of the poorest districts.
  • AUSTIN — Property-wealthy school districts spend about $65,000 more per classroom than poor districts,Equity Center Executive Director Wayne Pierce testified Thursday in an ongoing school funding lawsuit. “You could do some wonderful things” if property-poor schools received equal funding, Pierce told Judge John Dietz, who had asked why the funding gap was a disadvantage. Gary Scharrer, San Antonio.
  • (He demonstrated that). . . two homes whose property values were within $10 of each other — one in the San Antonio Independent School District area and one in neighboring Alamo Heights. Both areas pay $1.04 in property tax rates, but San Antonio gets $5,333 annually per student compared with $6,666 per student in Alamo Heights — a $1,333 per-student difference – Gary Scharrer, San Antonio.
  • Similarly, two Travis County homes of nearly identical value — one in Pflugerville ISD and one in Eanes ISD, with the same $1.04 tax rate — Eanes gets $1,327 more per student.“And with money, it’s cumulative,” Pierce said. “It’s not like this is only one year. Each year adds up.” Gary Scharrer, San Antonio.
  • An expert witness says the poorest school districts in Texas tax at a rate that is 7.8 percent higher than the state’s wealthiest districts, but receive 35 percent less in per student funding CBS – DFW
  • Pierce: If everyone taxed at max M&O ($1.17), the top 15% would receive $2,790 more than bottom 15%
  • Pierce: The story is always the same: the property poor district who have a higher tax rate yield less revenue.
  • Pierce says only 130 districts statewide can reach 1993 revenue per WADA level (adjusted for inflation) at $1.04.
  • Pierce says comparing Ch. 41 districts of yesterday to today is apples & oranges.
  • Before, there was about a 3 cents tax gap. In ’11-12, the gap is now 9 cents
  • The gap has increased by $864.
  • The tax rate gap is 14.3 cents between top & bottom 15%.
  • Pierce: Substantially equal revenue for substantially equal tax has gotten worse since Supreme Court decision.
  • When looking at the percent of students who were college ready, the higher percent belonged to those with more dollars
  • Pierce: In every instance, those with less funding had lower scores.

If you would like to read more of Dr. Pierce’s comments, click on the Equity Center Twitter Feed. – ja – webmaster@texasisd.com

Background on Equity and Adequacy Litigation in Texas

The following article is a good an explanation as I have seen about the causes behind the pending litigation against the state by a vast majority of Texas school districts for equitable and/or adequate funding.


Good explanation from IDRA about how schools are funded, the argument for equity and adequacy, etc.


Stealth Inequities in School Funding by Bruce Baker and Sean Corcoran, Sept. 2012, published by Center on American Progress


How Should Schools Be Funded? by Tarsi Dunlop, Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2012–excellent column calling on all citizens to do what is required to fund our public schools/



Equity in Texas school funding returns to fore in court

Arguments begin Oct. 22 in sweeping school finance trial involving two-thirds of Texas school districts.

By Kate Alexander

American-Statesman Staff

More than 135 years ago, state leaders etched into the Texas Constitution a commitment for the Legislature to provide an “efficient system of public free schools.” Those words have bedeviled their successors ever since.

Public education was “the most important yet the most difficult question that has or will come before us,” said one attendee at the constitutional convention in 1875, where they struggled with how to raise money for schools and apportion it across a vast and diverse state.

“They were talking kids, taxes, class and race,” said Albert Kauffman, a law professor at St. Mary’s University in San Antonio who litigated a seminal Texas school finance case.

And they still are.

Beginning Oct. 22 in a Travis County courtroom, lawyers representing about two-thirds of Texas’ school districts — which combined educate three-quarters of the state’s 5 million students — will argue that the Legislature has once again failed to meet its constitutional obligations.

At the center of Texas’ protracted battle over school finance is whether the state is providing more than 1,000 ethnically and economically diverse school districts what they need to ensure students are getting the constitutionally required “general diffusion of knowledge” needed to succeed in the 21st century economy.

“It looks to me like this is the granddaddy of all these cases,” state District Judge John Dietz said during a preliminary hearing this summer. “We’ve got every topic that’s ever been discussed.”

Six different groups have sued the state over a laundry list of potential violations, and many of the legal complaints overlap. The issue of “constitutional efficiency” — equity — has emerged as one key issue that divides the different coalitions of school districts. In short, can a poor school district access roughly equal amounts of money to educate students as a rich district?

The fundamental question about equity dates back to a 1984 lawsuit that for the first time successfully challenged the constitutionality of Texas’ school finance system.

Because Texas relies heavily on local property taxes to pay for schools, plaintiffs from the Edgewood school district in San Antonio argued that huge disparities in spending had emerged because of differences in communities’ property tax bases.

The wealthiest school districts — those rich in oil, natural gas and other resources as well as tony residential enclaves — were by and large taxing less than were poor districts. But they were able to spend on average $2,000 more per student because they had much higher property values. Spending across the state ranged from $2,100 to more than $19,300 per student and at least one of the poorest districts did not have the resources to offer instruction in chemistry, physics or any foreign languages.

In a landmark 1989 decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that “children who live in poor districts and children who live in rich districts must be afforded a substantially equal opportunity to have access to educational funds.”

For the state’s school finance system to be efficient, the court explained later, “citizens who were willing to shoulder similar tax burdens should have similar access to revenue for education.”

“For the poor districts, it was the greatest quantum leap in equality when the court finally came down on our side,” said Kauffman, who represented the Edgewood plaintiffs as a lawyer with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

It took the Legislature several tries to craft a system that met constitutional muster. The final outcome pumped more state money into schools, obligated the state to supplement local taxes in poorer school districts and required property-wealthy school districts to share some of their riches with the poor school districts — a provision commonly referred to as Robin Hood.

Over the next decade, disparities crept back into the school finance system, some school districts argued before the Supreme Court in 2005. The justices, however, did not uphold that claim of inequity. Instead, they found the system unconstitutional because the Legislature — by imposing caps on local property tax rates — had effectively enacted a statewide property taxwhich the constitution explicitly prohibits.

The Legislature’s remedy for that lawsuit, however, made the situation worse for districts on the low-end, they say in the current lawsuit.

In a 2006 special legislative session, lawmakers reduced local school property tax rates by one-third and dedicated more state money to the schools to replace the local money. So that no district suffered as they rebalanced the share of state and local dollars, legislators temporarily froze districts at the amount of per-student funding they were spending at the time and planned to implement a long-term solution the next year.

But the freeze was never lifted. There was no appetite in 2007 to dive back into school finance after years of tortured debate over the issue, and the problems with the temporary system were not immediately evident to legislators.

For some districts, the freeze came at a bad time. Pflugerville, for example, was in the middle of a growth spurt and a leadership change and had yet to invest in the programs needed to serve the districts burgeoning population of low-income students and English-language learners. Yet the district was locked at a low level of funding.

Compared with neighboring Round Rock, Pflugerville gets about $720 less per student. If funded at the higher level, Pflugerville would have an additional $19 million a year in its $160 million budget — or nearly 12 percent more, Superintendent Charles Dupre said.

There is no rational policy reason for the difference, said Dupre, who is also president of a coalition of more than 430 school districts that are advancing theequity argument.

“Pflugerville has always been fiscally lean. We have never had fluff or waste in our budget,” Dupre said. “Since 2006, we have been living in a stressful, perpetual state of budget reduction. … When they set in stone the target revenue, they basically codified inequity in our system.”

Past court rulings have found a $600 funding gap to be “minimally acceptable,” but the funding disparities now have increased by two and three times that amount, according to MALDEF, which is representing one of the plaintiff groups. Funding now ranges from about $4,000 per student to more than $12,000.

School districts with the most wealth have the most to lose, and they are making a different argument against the current finance system. They have avoided the equity argument in their briefs because of concerns that the potential remedy would probably hurt them without helping the overall public education system, lawyer Mark Trachtenberg said.

“To focus on equity doesn’t really capture the real problem with the current system,” Trachtenberg said. That problem, he said, is inadequate funding: The Legislature is asking districts to get students to ever-higher levels of academic performance without providing them sufficient resources to do so.

“We are making claims that, if successful, will benefit all districts,” said John Turner, another lawyer representing the property-wealthy school districts.

From the state’s perspective, the bar is quite low in order to meet the constitutional standard for equity. The school finance system is significantly more equitable than it was when the court originally deemed it unconstitutional in 1989; thus it is not “inefficient as a constitutional matter,” the state’s lawyers argue in a brief.

A spokesman for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the state would not comment beyond its brief.

It’s doubtful that the current litigation will lead to an end of the century-old battle over school finance, experts say.

Michael Griffith, a senior policy analyst at the Education Commission of the States, said a school finance system needs regular tweaking because the demographics, economics and expectations of education evolve, particularly in a growing state such as Texas.

“All of these things are out there, and you will never get a final permanent solution to your school funding issue,” Griffith said. “It will always be there because society always changes.”

Capitol staff writer Kate Alexander began covering education issues 10 years ago in Williamson County. She has spent the past four years reporting on the legislative battles over education spending.

Texas school finance court battles

1876: Texas Constitution adopted. It states: A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.

1984: Edgewood school district files suit claiming Texas’ public school finance system violates the state constitution because it is inequitable, failing to provide an “efficient” system of schools.

1989: Texas Supreme Court finds the system unconstitutional. Over the next few years, several different Edgewood-related cases head back to the court as the Legislature tries and fails to craft a response that passes constitutional muster.

1993: Legislature adopts a share-the-wealth system commonly referred to as “Robin Hood.”

1995: Texas Supreme Court upholds the school finance system as constitutional.

2001: A small group of property-wealthy school districts sue the state arguing that a state-imposed tax rate cap had effectively become a statewide property tax, which is prohibited by the constitution. The case was dismissed.

2002: Texas Supreme Court reverses the dismissal. Nearly 300 other school districts join the case and expand the arguments to claim the system is inequitable and does not provide adequate resources.

2005: Texas Supreme Court finds the school finance system unconstitutional only on the statewide property tax claim.

2011: Four separate plaintiff groups representing two-thirds of Texas school districts sue the state, making sweeping arguments that the school finance system is unconstitutional.

2012: Two other groups representing charter school interests join the lawsuit.

Oct. 22, 2012: Trial set to begin in Travis County.

Per-student funding in Austin area districts

In 2006, the Legislature froze per-student funding for school districts, which exposed significant differences among neighboring districts. Those inequities are part of the school finance litigation.

Granger | $4,990

Pflugerville | $5,264

Hutto | $5,504

San Marcos | $5,781

Round Rock | $5,981

Wimberley | $6,022

Austin | $6,101

Eanes | $6,347

Jarrell | $6,641

Source: Texas Education Agency data compiled by the Equity Center

School Finance, Aug. 4, 2004, Education Week:

Good explanation of school finance systems.


Expert:  Funds Not Enough to Meet State Standards, Houston Chronicle, Oct. 30, 2012


Texas Needs to Get Its Act Together on School Finance, Houston Chronicle, Oct. 26, 2012