Well you all have encouraged me to go out and read the opinion before spouting off about it, but I can't pull it up on Westlaw. W
hat little I do know suggests that (1) a vague constitutional provision requiring the state to provide some sort of public education system + (2) a judicial ruling that the current means of funding is flawed in some respect = higher taxes and more money thrown down the rathole of modern public education.
I won't disagree with you there...
Lawmakers will be called into new special session to give homeowners property tax relief
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
AUSTIN - Texas is using an unconstitutional state property tax to fund public schools, the Texas Supreme Court said Tuesday in a ruling that will force lawmakers to finally give homeowners their long-promised property tax relief.
The high court gave the Legislature until June 1 to find a solution or schools will not open in the fall. Lawmakers failed repeatedly over the past two years to pass a tax package to finance schools.
Gov. Rick Perry said he welcomed the ruling because it would give lawmakers the necessary incentive to finally deliver.
The ruling "validates the demands of Texas taxpayers who are fed up with property tax bills that climb higher and higher with each passing year," Perry said.
He and other state leaders were relieved that the court overturned a lower court ruling that could have forced major spending increases to the $32 billion school system.
Perry said he will call a special legislative session "at an appropriate time" to address the court's ruling. Most likely, the session will be after the March 7 party primaries, when the governor and many legislators will have contested re-election races.
To lower property taxes, lawmakers will have to pass a tax bill that likely includes higher consumer and business taxes. Plans considered by the Legislature earlier this year included sales tax hikes that would have resulted in net higher taxes for most homeowners.
"For the past decade, the Legislature has been shifting the responsibility of funding Texas schools onto local districts and onto the local property tax, but the local property tax can no longer bear this heavy burden," said David Thompson, a Houston attorney representing school districts that sued the state.
In a 7-1 ruling, the Supreme Court said the state's reliance on local property taxes for more than half of education funding has left school districts with no control over their tax rates.
The court noted that 67 percent of the districts, with 81 percent of the students, are taxing at or near the cap of $1.50 per $100 valuation.
"The current situation has become virtually indistinguishable from one in which the state simply set an ad valorem tax rate of $1.50 and redistributed the revenue to the districts," said Justice Nathan Hecht in the majority opinion.
Higher funding not ordered
The ruling forces state lawmakers to lower local property taxes and replace the resulting loss in revenue with new state taxes. That would help the 134 districts that now have to share revenue with poor schools, although the Supreme Court didn't strike down the so-called "Robin Hood" requirement.
Perry and many Republican lawmakers made school property tax cuts a major priority during their 2002 campaigns, but they have failed to act. The most recent failures came during two special sessions last summer, when Perry and legislative leaders couldn't agree on how to draft a new business tax to help pay for property tax relief.
A new Texas Tax Reform Commission appointed by Perry that had its first meeting on Monday is expected to have recommendations for property tax relief ready by next spring.
While the court ruling doesn't require the Legislature to increase overall school funding, Perry said the ultimate decision will be up to lawmakers.
The high court warned that Texas may be headed in the wrong direction, citing wide gaps in student performance along racial and economic lines and high dropout rates. The court also noted low levels of students meeting college preparedness standards and high attrition and turnover among teachers.
But Hecht said the state has met its constitutional requirement of providing a "general diffusion of knowledge" because "the undisputed evidence is that standardized test scores have steadily improved over time, even while tests and curriculum have been made more difficult."
The court noted that there is "substantial evidence ... that the public education system has reached the point where continued improvement will not be possible absent significant change."
Urging 'big-picture reforms'
Lawyers for the plaintiff school districts, which include Houston and many area suburban districts, said they hope the Legislature will do more than the minimum needed to meet the court ruling.
"We hope that the Legislature will heed the Supreme Court's call and adopt big-picture reforms that will place the Texas public school finance system on firm financial footing for years to come," said Mark Trachtenberg, a lawyer representing a group of school districts.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said he is committed to making significant changes.
"To me, school finance is not just about lowering local school property taxes, but improving the quality of education for all Texas children," he said.
And House Speaker Tom Craddick said he is "committed to finding a fair, equitable and constitutional alternative to the current school finance system."
Attorney General Greg Abbott, whose office defended the current school funding system against the lawsuit, said the Supreme Court recognized that "just because we can do a better job does not mean that the job being done now is unconstitutional."
"This is a victory for democracy because it ensures that decisions about education policy-making will remain in the elected Legislature rather than the courts," he said.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which represented 22 property-poor school districts in the case, bemoaned the high court's failure to "remedy persistent inequalities in the present school funding system."
"This case is not about money, but rather about lost educational opportunities for the 2 million-plus students attending schools in property-poor districts. Unfortunately, the court's decision ill-serves the interests of those children and the future of all Texas residents," said Ann Marie Tallman, the group's president and general counsel.
The court noted findings by state District Judge John Dietz, after a trial in Austin last year, that districts statewide are spending more than 97 percent of the revenue that would be available if every district taxed at maximum rates, up from 83 percent in 1993-94.
It also noted that only about one-third of the districts with about a fifth of the student population exceed minimum accreditation standards, a marked declined from 2001, when more than 60 percent of districts exceeded the minimum standards.
Justice Scott Brister dissented, while the newest member of the court, Justice Don Willett, who joined the court while the litigation was pending, abstained.
Brister said the majority goes too far by threatening to close schools unless the Legislature increases funding.
"But there is no end in sight; if the past is any indication, the new funding will not last long, and public education will not change much," Brister said.
Dietz, a Democrat, declared the school funding system unconstitutional in September 2004. He set an Oct. 1, 2005, deadline for the Legislature to change the law, but that deadline was stayed by the Supreme Court's consideration of the state's appeal.
Rich, poor districts joined in
Dietz ruled that the system is inadequate to meet the high standards that lawmakers have set for students. He cited evidence of a widening gap in educational achievement between "the haves and the have-nots" and said Texas faces a bleak future if it fails to spend more on public education.
The case is known as West Orange-Cove after a property-rich consolidated school district in East Texas. Rich and poor districts joined in the lawsuit to criticize the state for allowing its share of education funding to drop to a historic low of 38 percent as rising local property values and higher school tax rates made up the difference.
The districts argued they can't fund new programs needed to help students with the tougher academic tests implemented three years ago.
The existing school finance law, enacted in 1993, is the result of a previous court battle over funding equity between property-rich and property-poor districts.
janet.elliott@chron.com clay.robison@chron.com