School Finance

The History of Texas School Finance:
We cannot consider Texas public education without turning back the clock to our first constitution. The call for free public education for all set the tone for our current system. This tone has been the impetus in serving the needs of all students in Texas.  Setting aside 1/10th of state revenue for this purpose, the statement was made that education was to be a priority in our state. Through the work of Mirabeau B. Lamar, the Father of Texas Education, land was set aside for both county school districts, as well as what is now Texas A&M and the University of Texas.  All of this from a belief that education is an important priority in Texas.

We reached another milestone with the new state constitution in 1869. We mandated school attendance put in place, but a poll tax and an ad valorem tax were created as the foundation for public school funding.  This new requirement of attendance has been the downfall of many schools.  Being Created in 1869, some would probably like to revist this.

Finally, Edgewood vs. Kirby, the court battle that began in 1989, has played an important role in defining school finance in current times. Because of the ongoing battle that ensued, followed by the enactment of Senate Bill 1 in 1995, redistribution of wealth, commonly known as "Robin Hood" was implemented. Over time, this system has been questioned and tweaked, but it remains the foundational concept of our current system.
Current Situation:

The state school finance funding formula is susceptible to many variables. Recent lawsuits, court cases, and rulings have caused the issue to be in the spotlight.
One issue in the current system is the inverse nature of state funding. Which we are in another cycle of funding from the state legislature.  When local wealth is present, state funding is supposedly on a sliding scale downward, whereas when local wealth is absent, state funds kick in and provide more of a balance to the system; however, caveats to the system make this a complicated issue. Target revenue and hold harmless are two such issues. Districts held at a high target revenue are receiving more state funds than they would in a purely inverse system. This causes dissatisfaction and belief that the current system is inadequate and inequitable.  Also, we are seeing a decrease in Educational Funding as we are not using our rainy day funds which is in excess of 8 Billion dollars.
Another issue is the ongoing string of litigation. In West Orange Cove vs. Neely, districts held that the school finance system had, in essence, created a de facto statewide property tax. The Texas Supreme Court agreed.
Finally, the complication of the system creates criticism. The current system is complex and nobody in the legislature is eager to change it.  This has opened the door for dissent.  This dissent comes from everybody, rich or poor, urban or country.  Everybody would like a more equitable system.  Nobody can agree what that system is.

By raising academic standards and cutting school funding at the same time, the question should be asked if this method unconstitutional by Texas lawmakers.  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.” With  state 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 test.  We are being asked to educate more with less.

Group 5’s Response to Group 2, Part 1:

The opportunity for Texas to constitutional require fiscal support for its public educational system was essential in the development of several districts across the state. In addition to the financial requirement, the constitution of 1876 ensured that equitable and adequate funding for all stakeholders that attended public school. These selections for the top three events were spot on. In fact, your assessment is the foundation on not only school finance, but also “FAPE” or Free and Public Education. Moreover, your group did an outstanding job at bridging the Gilmer-Aiken act that built weighted funding in order to ensure adequate funding.

Group 5’s Response to Group 3, Part 1: 

Thanks for your group’s comments related back to “A New Constitution”, specifically compulsory attendance laws that stated the need to attend school from age 8 to 14. This is a big step for the state as it went up against the farmers and fair labor laws pre industrial revolution. Why is this important? I solidify the need for a child to attend school and continue their education through the age of 14.

Group 5’s Response to Group 2, Part 2:

When looking at the funding of school districts across the state is the most everyone has an opinion. In fact, as your assignment indicates, there was only an attempt of equitable funding with Chapter 41 or “Robin Hood”. When looking at the levels of recapture that some schools send is compounded when other programs are cut. Based on initial decision, it has been deemed unconstutional and a likely adjustment will occur in late summer, early fall. Great job at acknowledging the complex issue of school funding with a simplistic explanation that does not lose the intent.