Three Key Events in the History of Texas School Finance

The history of Texas School Finance is complicated and twisted. There are many competing interests and needs and implementation of the system, by the rule of law, has to fit within the limits established in the Texas Constitution. That said, here are my thoughts on the three most significant events:

The Texas Constitution of 1876: There are many historical events that have shaped current Texas School Finance practice beginning with the Texas Constitution adopted in 1876. This constitution established that “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 made suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.” The most current constitution trumps all previous versions thus is it the most significant for our purposes. This language has been used in legal challenges to established school funding laws in Texas and it is the law of the land. Thus I believe it has to be considered one of the most significant events.

Gilmer-Aiken Laws: The next significant event in Texas Public School finance was the period of time spanning from the depression era, through post-World War II, to the formulation of the Gilmer-Aiken laws in 1947. This series of laws established many rules for education and impacted the way in which funding was achieved in order to address adequacy issues. This series of laws established the regimented fashion by which the state supplemented local school tax effort. After implementation of these laws, many believed that the legislature had not gone far enough to address the needs of all students in the state. 

Legal Challenges: The Gilmer Aiken Laws lead to the next significant event in Texas School Finance, the series of legal challenges to Texas funding laws, referred to as Rodriguez v. San Antonio ISD and the following Edgewood cases. In Rodriguez v. SAISD, the US Supreme court essentially ruled that a violation of the federal constitution did not exist as the case was argued, but the decision indicated that it was a state issue. The resulting court cases of Edgewood v. Kirby were argued in the State Supreme Court. As a result of the Edgewood cases, the Texas Supreme Court ordered the state legislature to fix the problem of equity in education funding. This resulted in what is known as the “Robin Hood Plan” and established the practice of “recapture” whereby property wealthy districts had local tax revenue recaptured by the state and essentially distributed to property poor school districts. This attempt to equalize funding spawned another case called, West Orange Cove CISD v. Neely where the plaintiffs, 46 school districts, argued that the “Robin Hood Plan” established a de facto and unconstitutional State Property Tax. Two other parties that joined the plaintiffs in the suit also argued that the current funding plan was unconstitutional because it was inefficient, language directly from the Texas Constitution. The Texas Supreme court decision in 2005 called the current system adequate, recommended consolidation of smaller districts in the name of efficiency, declared that the disparity between property rich and property poor districts was not yet unconstitutional but warned that the disparity would soon reach unconstitutional heights. The resulting action by the legislature during the 81st legislative session reduced the M&O Tax rate, created “target revenue” funding, created the hold harmless provision, created new state taxes to fund “hold harmless” and provided districts with additional taxing authority for enrichment. While each of these legal challenges and the resulting mandates the courts have placed on the legislature to fix the problems could be viewed as individual events, it is obvious that legal challenges and the resulting legal mandates will rule the implementation and reform of the way in which schools are funded in Texas into the future. Our legislators are not fixing the problem adequately and so court intervention becomes necessary. I believe that legal challenges will be the main avenue to force the legislature to take action. That is why I lumped them together as one event. 

What do you think?