The Texas Supreme Court on Friday issued a ruling upholding the state‚Äôs public school funding system as constitutional, while asserting¬†that the state‚Äôs more than 5 million students ‚Äúdeserve transformational, top-to-bottom reforms that amount to more than Band-Aid on top of Band-Aid.”
‚ÄúOur Byzantine school funding ‚Äėsystem‚Äô is undeniably imperfect, with immense room for improvement. But it satisfies minimum constitutional requirements,‚ÄĚ Justice Don Willett wrote in the court‚Äôs 100-page¬†opinion, which asserted that the court‚Äôs ‚Äúlenient standard of review in this policy-laden area counsels modesty.‚ÄĚ
There were no dissenting opinions;¬†Justices Eva Guzman and Jeff Boyd delivered concurring¬†ones.
“Good enough now … does not mean that the system is¬†good¬†or that it will continue to be¬†enough,” Guzman wrote.¬†“Shortfalls in both resources and performance persist in innumerable respects, and a perilously large number of students is in danger of falling further behind.”
Since the 1980s, school districts have repeatedly sued the state in an attempt to increase public education funding. The latest case, brought by more than two-thirds of Texas school districts, is the seventh time such a case has reached the state Supreme Court.
‚ÄúThis is an historic ruling by the Texas Supreme Court, and a major victory for the people of Texas, who have faced an endless parade of lawsuits following any attempt to finance schools in the state,‚ÄĚ Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement Friday. “We have said all along that school financing must be debated and shaped by the Texas Legislature, not through decades‚Äô worth of ongoing litigation in the court system, and I‚Äôm pleased the court unanimously agrees.”
“Today’s ruling is a victory for Texas taxpayers and the Texas Constitution,” said Gov. Greg Abbott, who was attorney general when the lawsuit was filed. “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.”
Houston Lawyer Mark Trachtenberg, who represented property-wealthy school districts in the case, said the ruling “represents a dark day for Texas school children, especially given the Legislature‚Äôs repeated failure to adequately fund our schools.‚ÄĚ
‚ÄúGiven the importance of education in the 21st Century economy, Texas simply cannot afford to be bringing up the rear among the states in financial support of public education,‚ÄĚ he said.
Teacher groups also bemoaned the ruling.
‚ÄúIt is a sad day when the state‚Äôs highest court¬†decides that doing the least the state can do to educate our children is enough,‚ÄĚ said¬†Texas State¬†Teachers Association President Noel¬†Candelaria.
Meanwhile, the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a¬†left-leaning think tank, called on the Legislature to ‚Äúmake meaningful investments in our schools so that all Texans have the chance to live up to their full potential.‚ÄĚ
A recent study by the National Education Association found that Texas ranks 38th in the country in per-pupil public-education spending.
In the latest school finance suit, more than 600¬†Texas school districts sued the state after the Legislature cut $5.4 billion from the public education budget in 2011.
Their lawyers argued the state’s method of funding public schools was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds ‚ÄĒ that the¬†Legislature had failed to provide districts with sufficient funding to ensure students meet the state’s increasingly difficult academic standards; that big disparities had emerged between property-wealthy and property-poor school districts; and that many school districts were having to tax at the maximum rate just to provide a basic education, meaning they lacked “meaningful discretion” to set rates. That¬†amounts to a violation of a constitutional ban on a statewide property tax.
In a 2014 ruling,¬†Travis County District Court Judge John Dietz ‚ÄĒ a Democrat ‚ÄĒ upheld all of those claims, siding with the plaintiff school districts.
He ruled against¬†two other parties in the lawsuit that did not represent traditional school districts.
In early 2012, a group representing parents, school choice advocates and the business community filed a suit alleging¬†that the current school finance system is inefficient and over-regulated.¬†The Texas Charter Schools Association also sued the state, arguing that a cap on charter school contracts and charters’ lack of access to facilities funding was unconstitutional.
Then-Attorney General¬†Abbott appealed Dietz’s ruling directly to the all-Republican state Supreme Court.
During oral arguments Sept. 1,¬†state lawyers asked the court to dismiss or remand the case to a lower court so it may consider changes lawmakers recently have enacted to the state’s school finance system. Last year, the Legislature increased public education funding by¬†$1.5 billion and authorized another $118 million for a high quality pre-kindergarten grant program that Abbott championed.
Before issuing his ruling,¬†Dietz¬†reopened evidence¬†for a four-week period so that he could consider changes made by the 2013 Legislature, which restored about $3.4 billion of the $5.4 billion in public education cuts made in 2011¬†and changed graduation and testing requirements.
Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly said¬†Friday was the first time the Texas Supreme Court has upheld the state‚Äôs school finance system as constitutional. It was the second time.¬†
Disclosure: The¬†Texas State Teachers Association and the Center for Public Policy Priorities have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune. A complete list of Tribune donors and sponsors can be viewed¬†here.
The Texas Tribune is a nonpartisan, nonprofit media organization that informs Texans ‚ÄĒ and engages with them ‚Äď about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues