Here is a good article explaining Judge John Dietz’s decision that school funding in Texas violates the state constitution.
“State District Judge John Dietz decided in favor of the more than 600 school districts who sued the state. They argued the Legislature has consistently underfunded schools while imposing new and expensive academic requirements for students.
“In his ruling, the judge also pointed to inequities in the system that leave some lower-wealth school districts with far less money to spend on their pupils than their wealthier counterparts across the state.
“The court finds that the Legislature has failed to meet its constitutional duty to suitably provide for Texas public schools because the school finance system is structured, operated and funded so that it cannot provide a constitutionally adequate education for all Texas schoolchildren,” Dietz wrote in his 21-page final judgment in the case.
“The court enjoins further funding under the system until the constitutional infirmities are corrected.”
“Dietz also said lawmakers erred by sharply limiting the taxing ability of school districts, which amounts to an illegal statewide property tax.
“Schools will not be immediately affected, as Dietz put the ruling on hold until July 1. The decision is expected to be appealed directly to the Texas Supreme Court, which last ruled on school finance in the fall of 2005. That order forced the state to revamp its method of funding education so that it was less reliant on local property taxes.
“If the high court affirms Dietz’ new ruling, it would force the Legislature back to the drawing board. That would probably not occur until after the upcoming legislative session in January.
“The judge originally found the funding system unconstitutional in February of 2013 after a 12-week trial pitting the state against school districts – including dozens from North Texas. But he withheld his final decision in the case after legislative leaders indicated they would address the issues raised by Dietz during their 2013 session.
“Lawmakers did increase school funding by $3.4 billion in the current biennium. However, that did not make up for the $5.4 billion that was cut in 2011 to offset a severe shortfall in state revenue. Lawmakers also dropped 10 of the 15 high school tests that were slated to be required for graduation.
“Additional hearings were held by Dietz earlier this year to decide whether the actions of the Legislature would temper his earlier decision.
“They didn’t.
“In his original ruling, the judge suggested it could take an extra $2,000 per child to meet all state standards – a total price tag of $10 billion to $11 billion a year.
“Education costs money, but ignorance costs more money,” he summed up. “It is the people of Texas who must set the standards, make sacrifices and give direction to their leaders about what kind of education system they want. The longer we wait, the worse it gets.”

With all due respect, this is not a “blockbuster” ruling. Read below what happened in 2005, and keep in mind that the lege (at Gov. Perry’s bidding) reduced ed. funding by more than 5 BILLION in 2010.
The rulings are nothing new here. We have to see what happens in the aftermath. So, far, the “fixes” have only made the problem worse. I mean i will keep my fingers crossed and keep activating for change, but i will not be holding my breath.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Court-rules-state-school-finance-system-1558678.php
LikeLike
Should’ve proofread more carefully — ‘activating” should be “advocating” and I have a lower case “I”…I am used to being able to edit my posts…
LikeLike
This happened in Ohio a decade ago with the DeRolph ruling. The legislature simply ignored the state supreme court.
LikeLike
These school funding decisions are not easy to comply with, though. A court can invalidate a funding scheme as unconstitutional, but it can’t replace it with a new funding scheme. Nor can “the state” or the state education department, even though they’re usually the defendants. It’s up to the legislature to enact a new funding system. Neither the governor nor the courts can tell the legislature how to do that.
LikeLike
And so nothing gets done. DeRolph was simply ignored because of politics, not procedure or difficulty in implemention. Legislators in Ohio are both unaccountable because of gerrymandering and myopic due to term limits. Reducing the reliance on property taxes was a core issue in DeRolph, yet the Republicans under Kasich have shifted the funding of schools even more to the local level and families.
LikeLike
Politics is the procedural difficulty.
LikeLike
Not even the art of the possible today.
LikeLike
No unfunded mandates.
No populace would vote to raise their taxes to pay for two weeks of standardized testing a year. The legislature can dream it up, but the taxpayers have the common sense to know it is a huge waste of money.
LikeLike
Massive decision. Literally. The conclusions of law don’t start until page 340 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
I didn’t read it closely, because this thing is massive. But I looked for the thing I always look for in this type of decision — what metrics the court used to determine whether the quality of education is adequate. Looks like it was entirely based on test scores, with the most emphasis on performance on Texas’s STAAR exams as an indication of “college and career-readiness.”
Also, too many students not meeting the state’s benchmarks for college-and-career-readiness on the SAT and ACT.
Also, NAEP scores have been flat (flat!) for several years.
Also, no excuses: “Texas does not set lower standards for students because of their race, poverty status. or ELL status. Texas aims for each of these students to be college and career ready, without respect to how poorly or well students in a similar demographic group perform in other states.”
Live by the scores, die by the scores.
LikeLike
There’s also the usual set of findings about instruction, class size, and facilities. Lot of expert testimony, much of it purporting to quantify the impact of instruction on test scores. A little something for everybody.
E.g.:
Of course, who could argue with that?
Wait, what?
Oh no!
Phew.
Zing, TFA!
Sing it, sister!
Whoa, now you’re getting a little insulting.
A final nugget, courtesy of Dr. Vignor’s expert report.
LikeLike
Thank you, FLERP!
LikeLike
Since 1992 (DeRolph Decision) the state Supreme Court in Ohio and 4 times since then have said that the way Ohio funds education is unconstitutional. I believe that is 22 years. So, sorry Texas, it probably won’t mean anything there either. At the time, it was publicly stated that it would just sit in the courts and nothing would change and that was quite true…………
LikeLike
I wish I could get excited about this… but… those who oppose equitable funding will push back and it will be decades before the funding formula is fixed. I offer my home state of NH as evidence.
LikeLike