Morgan Smith wrote the best article I have seen so far on the decision by Judge John Dietz ruling that school funding in Texas is inequitable and unconstitutional. This article includes links to the decision and findings.
I repeat what the judge said last year because it is so simple yet eloquent as an explanation of our civic duty to our children. Note also that the judge ruled against the appeals of charter advocates and referred them to the Legislature:
“Though Dietz made no public remarks on Thursday, his decision is a reprise of an earlier oral ruling in February 2013. From the bench at the time, Dietz discussed what he called the “civic, altruistic and economic” reasons for supporting public education.
“We realize that others provided for us when we were children. We realize that children are without means to secure their education. Just as others provided for us when we were in school, now is the time when we provide for others,” he said, going on to describe the societal benefits of a well-educated population: lower crime rates, fewer people who need public assistance and a greater state income.
“The judge ruled against the two parties in the lawsuit that did not represent traditional school districts. He held that the issues raised by Texans for Real Efficiency and Equity in Education — a group representing parents, school choice advocates and the business community that alleged that the current system was inefficient and overregulated — were better solved by the Legislature. He also ruled against the Texas Charter School Association, which argued that the state cap on charter school contracts and charters’ lack of access to facilities funding was unconstitutional.”
Joe Smith, a retired superintendent in Texas, has an influential blog, where he pointed to “the enormity” of the decision.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane, thanks for posting about this article. One issue that this article and the legal case touched on was charter school funding.
Here’s an excerpt of the article relating to this issue:
—
In a statement, David Dunn, the executive director of the charter school organization, praised the judge’s finding that school districts were underfunded. But he said the judge “got it wrong on specific charter claims.”
“The evidence was plain during trial: charter school students receive $1,000 less than district students on average each year,” he said. “This disparity creates constitutional harm that Judge Dietz failed to recognize despite the use of the state’s own data to prove this point.”
—
It is fairly easy to refute Mr. Dunn’s claim that charter schools are underfunded. There is a perfectly sensible reason for charter schools to receive less money per student. The home school district performs certain functions that benefit all schools. For example, many school districts coordinate or oversees transportation, Title I fund distribution, and nutrition programs.for all schools in its jursidiction. Since charter schools utilize services such as transportation, Title I funds, and nutrition programs which the school district provides, it makes sense for charter schools to pay for these overhead costs by way of a deduction from per-pupil payments.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike