Court Actions Related to Funding

Running Head:  COURT ACTIONS RELATED TO FUNDING

Position Paper: Court Actions Related to Funding for Public Schools over the Past Five Years

Cedric B. Stewart

Court Actions Related to Funding for Public Schools over the Past Five Years

Identify the Issues Related to the Topic Selected

Within the past five years, school finance reform has been dictated by the judicial efforts of a number of school districts seeking to redress funding issues''. West- Cove Consolidated ISD, et.al, v. Neeley, et.al'', began as an original lawsuit filed in 2001 by four property-rich school districts (West Orange-Cove v. Neeley, 2004). They asserted in their initial petition that because they were or would soon be levying local property taxes at $1.50 per $100 of the taxable value, the statutory maximum allowable rate for maintenance and operations (M&O) of schools, that they had in fact lost local discretion in setting their respective district’s M&O rates. They concluded that to continue operating under such conditions had effectively created a state ad valorem property tax that was expressly prohibited under the Texas Constitution, Article 8, section 1-e (Texas Constitution, 2005).

Then State District Judge Scott McCown dismissed the original case without a trial (West Orange-Cove v. Neeley, 2004). In reaching this opinion, he agreed with the state’s assertion that because fewer than half of all districts had reached the $1.50 cap, an “insufficient” number existed for the court to determine whether or not the state had established a prohibited statewide property tax. Later, though the Third Court of Appeals in upheld this decision on initial review, the Texas Supreme Court reversed both lower courts’ decisions and remanded the case to a Travis County District Court for trial. Due to increasing concerns by other districts or perhaps realizing the importance of the merits of the case, eventually over 300 additional districts enjoined in the lawsuit, which was subsequently divided into three separate groups.

In the first group, the initial four West-Orange Cove plaintiffs were joined by 43 other districts that represented a combination of both property-poor and property-wealthy districts from throughout the state (West Orange-Cove v. Neeley, 2004). Together, they reiterated the original complaint that because they were near or at the $1.50 cap in order to meet minimal educational requirements for instructing their students, they lacked discretion in setting local tax rates. Again, the plaintiffs asserted that this was a violation of provisions found within the Texas Constitution. However, unlike their original complaint, this one was amended by alleging that the revenue received under the current tax cap was insufficient to provide for a constitutionally “adequate” education for their students. This marked the first time in a lawsuit for public educational funding that the national trend of adequacy was finally being addressed.

The second group of plaintiffs, the  intervenors, was comprised of twenty of the poorest school districts within the state (Edgewood v. Kirby, 1989; West Orange-Cove v. Neeley, 2004). Their intervention in the lawsuit was predicated on the resistance of any alterations to the present tax structure or current school financing formulas that would erode the gains achieved through equity disbursements between property-rich and property-poor school districts that were realized through the lawsuits of the 1990s. They also contended that the current funding gaps between the richest and poorest districts, including those for school facilities, did not meet constitutional levels of equity.

The third and final group entered the case as the Alvarado plaintiffs/intervenors (West Orange-Cove v. Neeley, 2004). This group, comprised of more than 200 property poor districts, sought also to preserve the equity of the system as defined in previous cases; however, it also sought to emphasize the adequacy claim. They purported that the current level of state and local funds that were available for public schools use were inadequate to meet the constitutional requirement to provide a “general diffusion of knowledge”.

In his final ruling, Judge Dietz identified four areas where the current school funding mechanism violated state constitutional requirements (West Orange-Cove v. Neeley, 2004). These were:

1.  The existing $1.50 tax limits on local maintenance and operating taxes;

2.  The level of funding provided to schools under current formulas;

3.  The extent of equity and adequacy of existing state facilities funding mechanisms; and

4.  The level of funding provided under current bilingual education and compensatory       education funding formulas.

To support his sweeping order, the judge compiled an extensive collection of “findings of fact” that provided the justification for the opinions reached in this case. The state immediately filed and appeal with the Texas Supreme Court and they agreed to hear arguments before the court.

On November 22, 2005, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in West Orange-Cove v. Neeley (2004).The Supreme Court of Texas agreed that the state’s system of funding education through a local ad valorem property tax violated the state’s constitutional prohibition against a state property tax because a cap on local tax rates did effectively rob districts from any “meaningful discretion to tax below maximum rates and still provide an accredited education” (West Orange-Cove v. Neeley, 2004). The court gave the legislature until to remedy this constitutional deficiency. The court also acknowledged that there were gross inequities, such as the lack of additional funding for districts “struggling to teach an increasingly demanding curriculum to a population with a growing number of disadvantaged students,” and the “wide gaps in performance among student groups differentiated by race, proficiency in English, and economic advantage.”  The court took note of “substantial evidence…that the public education system has reached the point where continued improvement will not be possible absent significant change,” and recognized that deficiencies in the school finance system could, in time, “expose the system to constitutional challenge.”  Nevertheless, in spite of this plain and consistent evidence of substantial shortcomings in public schools, the court ultimately held, as in Edgewood IV (1995), that the educational funding system did not violate the constitutional requirements of adequacy, efficiency, and suitability.

'''Discuss the Common Thoughts that others have on the Selected Topic '''

            For over 25 years, battles over public school funding have been clogging the nation’s court’s systems (Hanushek, 2006). Beginning in 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court declared in Rodriguez v. that education was not a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution, equity advocates and public interest lawyers have fought a state-by-state battle against the inequities of the public school finance system. These inequities have been traced to widespread gaps in per pupil spending among districts and to finance systems that rely too heavily upon an uneven property tax base as the primary source of funds for education.

The inequities in school finance systems have also been attributed to unusual funding formulas that dispense state aid in ways that systematically perpetuate inequality (Duke, 2006). Two examples of these are state and federal tax policies that disinvest from public services like education while preserving pockets of privileged and the growing economic stratification that exist in society today. In many ways, the current funding mechanisms that deliver drastically different experiences to kids in various classrooms simply mirror the inequalities that exist all around us.

Since the 1970s, over 30 state Supreme Court decisions have been issued in school finance cases (Hanushek, 2006). About half of these have declared existing funding systems illegal and or inadequate and mandated a variety of measures. In the remaining cases, courts have rejected the challenges or refrained from intervening while acknowledging inequities: contending that the issue is a legislative, not a judicial matter, or more narrowly interpreting the state’s obligation to provide education to all.

Even where courts have declared funding systems fundamentally illegal, equitable solutions have been for from inevitable (Odden & Picus, 2007). Court decisions, in themselves, have often proved to be insufficient in assuring equity for a variety of reasons. While courts have been moved by conditions to order reform, it has almost been impossible to keep the executive and legislative branches of government from eroding, evading, or limiting the impact of the court’s decisions. Courts have generally given the states wide latitude to proceed with “good faith” efforts, though sometimes promising further review if they prove to be inadequate.

Compounding this problem is that historically, it has been argued that schools rely on local property taxes because of the strong American tradition found in local school control (Odden & Picus, 2007). However, one issue that has been clarified through state litigation over funding inequities is that it is the states, and not the local districts, constitutional responsibility to fund public schools. While states may allow educational funding to be premised on a local property tax base, this is not necessarily the result of any immutable standing or compelling interest on behalf of the school district. Rather it is a product of the state’s decision about its own funding policies and about the taxing authority it may or may not make available to local entities like school boards and city councils, and whether or not it provides legal basis for permitting inequities to exist. Conversely, the state has the power to modify or reinvent the funding system in any capacity they deem appropriate and to keep or change district authority in any given area of school policy or oversight. In other words, preserving local control does not depend on retaining the link between school funding and local property taxes.

'''Identify the Belief the Learner has on the Topic Selected'''

            Because of past educational funding lawsuits, has been at the forefront of the national debate on public school revenue issues (Baker, Taylor, & Vedlitz, 2004). This position has forced both educators and policymakers alike to focus more on student performance and school district accountability. While has made great strides in its endeavourers, large achievement gaps still exist especially between white and minority students and those that are labeled economically disadvantaged. Additionally, student performances on the NAEP, the only national test of elementary and secondary student performance suggest that students lag behind the national average (Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey, & Stecher, 2000).

Having observed the political system from the local level for a number of years, I have serious concerns as to whether or not recent legislation that is the result of the Supreme Court’s ruling will have any lasting impact on improving overall student performance or conditions. , with its vast resources, is a state that has in the past been adversely opposed to new taxation and without the infusion of large revenue; it shall not be able to provide an adequate education for all of its students. In order to achieve true educational adequacy, money must not only be distributed to all districts but especially to those that are under funded.

Although does use a weighted funding formula system that includes provisional cost factors for district size, compensatory, and bilingual education, the current adjustments simply are inadequate. Using the present “Robin Hood’ system, any attempts to supplement revenue to higher needs districts will most likely result in reduced wealth neutrality and access equality. Due to the fact that variations across districts require differences in the levels of resources necessary to achieve a given performance standard, it is impossible to expect both equal outcomes for equal dollar allocations.

'''Provide Justification for the Identified Belief'''

Over the past decade, court cases concerning school funding has shifted in their primary focus from that of equity to that of educational adequacy (Weiss, 2007). Recent judicial interpretations of the educational clause of state constitutions require that the school finance systems provide each district, school, and student an adequate level of resources. This concept has been generally defined as the level of funding that would permit each district and school the opportunity to employ a range of educational programs and strategies that would allow each individual student an opportunity to meet the state’s predetermined educational performance standards (Reschovsky & Imazeki, 2001). While the courts have been vague and somewhat ambiguous in determining an exact dollar amount, many organizations have contracted with financial experts to help in their protracted legal battles by determining exactly what an adequate education would cost? Currently, four major methods exist to determine school financing adequacy: cost (Duncombe, Ruggiero, & Yinger, 1996; Imazeki & Reschovsky, 2005); professional judgment (Augenblick, Myers, Silverstein, & Barkis, 2002); successful schools/districts (Augenblick, 2001); and evidence-based (Hoxby, 2000).

Even with such subjective procedures, education is still a complex issue (Duke, 2006). No simple answer or choice exists at this time. If they did exist, it certainly would be reasonable to assume that everyone would be moving in that direction without the intervention of the court system. Therefore, in the face of such uncertainty, experimentation with various programs and policies to evaluate overall effectiveness in different circumstances would seem most appropriate (Baker et al., 2004). It has always been necessary to invest in knowledge about new approaches.

Because adequacy is a fairly new concept and that state constitutions say virtually nothing explicitly about the topic, its very notion is fraught with uncertainty and suspicion (Hanushek, 2006). It is an intangible concept that requires complex and deeply contestable determinations about the purpose of education, how it is to be achieved, and most importantly, what resources are needed to accomplish these goals (Baker et al., 2004). Frequently more courts have found this area to be justiciable by applying a combination of the general purposes of education combined with directives to state legislatures to develop more specific standards that include educational inputs and outputs that could then be used as performance measures upon which adequacy claims could be based or benchmarked (Hanushek, 2006).

            

References

Augenblick, J. (2001). ''Calculation of the cost of an adequate education in in 1999-2000 using two different analytic approaches''. : Augenblick and Meyers.

Augenblick, J., Myers, J., Silverstein, J., & Barkis, A. (2002). ''Calculations of the cost of suitable education in in 2000-2001'': Report prepared for the Kansas Legislative Coordinating Council.

Baker, B., Taylor, L., & Vedlitz, A. (2004). ''Measuring educational adequacy in public schools. ''Retrieved February 29, 2008, from http://www.bush.tamu.edu/research/workingpapers/ltaylor/measuring_edu_adequacy_in_public_schools_pdf.

Duke, D. (2006). What we know and don't know about improving low-performing schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 728-734.

Duncombe, W., Ruggiero, J., & Yinger, J. (1996). ''"Alternative approaches to measuring the cost of education." In Holding schools accountable; performance-based reform in education, edited by Helen F. Ladd''. : The Brookings Institution.

Hanushek, E. (2006). Courting failure. : : Education Next Press.

Hoxby, C. (2000). Does competition among public schools benefit students and taxpayers? American Economic Review, 90(December), 1209-1238.

Imazeki, J., & Reschovsky, A. (2005). Assessing the use of econometric analysis in estimating the cost of meeting state education accountability standards: Lessons from.  Journal of Education, 80(2005), 96-125.

Klein, S., Hamilton, L., McCaffrey, D., & Stecher, B. (2000, October 26). What do test scores in tell us? Education Policy Analysis Archive, 8(49). Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n49.

Odden, A., & Picus, L. (2007). ''School finance: A policy perspective ''(4th ed.). : McGraw Hill.

Reschovsky, A., & Imazeki, J. (2001). Achieving educational adequacy through school finance reform. Journal of Education Finance, 26(4), 373-396.

Constitution (2005, November 8). ''Texas constitution, article 8, § 1-e. ''Retrieved February 28, 2008, from http:tlo2tlc.state.tx.ux/txconst/toc.html.

Weiss, J. (2007). ''Conditions for student success: The engine that drives instructional improvement. ''Retrieved March 1, 2008, from www.schoolfinanceredesign.org/pub.pdf/wp2-odden.pdf.

''West Orange-Cove et al. v. Neeley et. al''. 2004. "Finding of fact and conclusion of law," No GV-100528, District Court,, November 30. Retrieved February, 2008, from http://www.equitycenter.org.