1. Platinum Sponsor
05/18/2016
Equity Center

2. Gold Sponsors
05/18/2016
Equity Center

3. What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children. (John Dewey)
05/18/2016
Equity Center

4. Where we now stand
Equity Center Presentation on Texas Public School Finance ESC6 Joint Superintendent/Business Officials Meeting May 18, 2016
©Equity Center
November 9, 2015
05/18/2016
Equity Center

5. Texas high court upholds 'imperfect' school funding system
Laurel Calkins, (c) 2016, Bloomberg(c) 2016, Bloomberg
The Legislative Budget Board found 30 percent of Texas schools still get less than they did before the 2011 cuts, with wealthy districts getting about $50,000 more per classroom than poor ones.
05/18/2016
Equity Center

6. “Our basic framework for deciding this issue has not changed since Edgewood I, where we held that “districts must have substantially equal access to similar revenues per pupil at similar levels of tax effort.”
05/18/2016
Equity Center

7. A State expert, Dr. Lisa Dawn-Fisher, offered data that for 2013–14, the wealthiest 5% of districts had a weighted average of $7,673 in M&O dollars per student in WADA while the poorest 5% had $5,797, for a ratio of 1.32.
05/18/2016
Equity Center

8. TTSFC refers us to calculations from its expert Dr
TTSFC refers us to calculations from its expert Dr. Wayne Pierce, showing a slightly different ratio. It shows, for 2013–14, average M&O revenue per student in WADA for the top and bottom 5% of districts at $8,146 and $5,737, for a ratio of 1.42.
05/18/2016
Equity Center

9. constitutionally unacceptable yields in Edgewood I.
The parties offered yield evidence in today’s case, including calculations by Dawn-Fisher,
a State expert, and Pierce, an expert for the Financial Efficiency Plaintiffs. Depending on the
methods used and the precise figures being measured,268 the yields vary considerably, but overall are
264 Edgewood I, 777 S.W.2d at 397.
265 See id. at 393 (describing the richest districts as spending an average of $7,233 per students at an average
tax rate of 47 cents, while the poorest spent an average of $2,978 at an average tax rate of 74.5 cents).
S.W.2d at 730–31.
267 Id. at 731 n.12.
268 As described supra note 260, there are numerous parameters that can be used in making these sorts of
calculations, and depending on the precise methods employed, the ultimate resulting ratios can vary. 76
much closer to the constitutionally acceptable yields described in Edgewood IV than the
constitutionally unacceptable yields in Edgewood I.
Using 2013 data and 2014 legislative parameters, and considering actual tax rates, Dawn-
Fisher’s assessed the richest and poorest 10% of districts, with each group consisting of 102 districts,
inviting a comparison to Edgewood I’s richest and poorest 100 districts. She calculated weighted
average M&O yields of for the richest 10% and for the poorest, for a ratio of
Looking to the richest and poorest 15% of districts yielded a ratio of These ratios fall within
the ratios of 1.36 and 1.07 described in Edgewood IV, which considered the richest and poorest 15%
of districts, and are far below the ratio of 3.85 in Edgewood I, which considered the richest and
poorest 100 districts. Similar though not identical ratios can be derived from Pierce’s calculations,
which also considered 2013 actual tax rates and 2014 legislative parameters. Looking at the districts
comprising the top and bottom 15% of students, as was done in Edgewood IV, produced average
M&O yields of and 51.94, for a ratio of Pierce’s data showed a ratio of 1.56 for the top
and bottom 15% when Pierce combined M&O and I&S average revenues. These ratios are higher
than the ratios described in Edgewood IV (1.36 and 1.07) but still far below the 3.85 ratio in
Edgewood I.
05/18/2016
Equity Center

10. constitutionally unacceptable yields in Edgewood I.
The parties offered yield evidence in today’s case, including calculations by Dawn-Fisher,
a State expert, and Pierce, an expert for the Financial Efficiency Plaintiffs. Depending on the
methods used and the precise figures being measured,268 the yields vary considerably, but overall are
264 Edgewood I, 777 S.W.2d at 397.
265 See id. at 393 (describing the richest districts as spending an average of $7,233 per students at an average
tax rate of 47 cents, while the poorest spent an average of $2,978 at an average tax rate of 74.5 cents).
S.W.2d at 730–31.
267 Id. at 731 n.12.
268 As described supra note 260, there are numerous parameters that can be used in making these sorts of
calculations, and depending on the precise methods employed, the ultimate resulting ratios can vary. 76
much closer to the constitutionally acceptable yields described in Edgewood IV than the
constitutionally unacceptable yields in Edgewood I.
Using 2013 data and 2014 legislative parameters, and considering actual tax rates, Dawn-
Fisher’s assessed the richest and poorest 10% of districts, with each group consisting of 102 districts,
inviting a comparison to Edgewood I’s richest and poorest 100 districts. She calculated weighted
average M&O yields of for the richest 10% and for the poorest, for a ratio of
Looking to the richest and poorest 15% of districts yielded a ratio of These ratios fall within
the ratios of 1.36 and 1.07 described in Edgewood IV, which considered the richest and poorest 15%
of districts, and are far below the ratio of 3.85 in Edgewood I, which considered the richest and
poorest 100 districts. Similar though not identical ratios can be derived from Pierce’s calculations,
which also considered 2013 actual tax rates and 2014 legislative parameters. Looking at the districts
comprising the top and bottom 15% of students, as was done in Edgewood IV, produced average
M&O yields of and 51.94, for a ratio of Pierce’s data showed a ratio of 1.56 for the top
and bottom 15% when Pierce combined M&O and I&S average revenues. These ratios are higher
than the ratios described in Edgewood IV (1.36 and 1.07) but still far below the 3.85 ratio in
Edgewood I.
05/18/2016
Equity Center

11. 05/18/2016
Equity Center

12. TTSFC refers us to calculations from its expert Dr
TTSFC refers us to calculations from its expert Dr. Wayne Pierce, showing a slightly different ratio. It shows, for 2013–14, average M&O revenue per student in WADA for the top and bottom 5% of districts at $8,146 and $5,737, $9,021 and $5,757 for a ratio of
05/18/2016
Equity Center

13. Fallacy of Ratios
Using the erroneous 1.42 ratio, the court is saying that if the Legislature gave the lowest funded districts $100 in new funding, and gave the highest funded district $141 in new funding, the system would be more equitable.
05/18/2016
Equity Center

14. 05/18/2016
Equity Center

15. $9,021 minus $5,757 = $3,264 per WADA Funding Gap
22 children x 95% attendance rate = 20.9 ADA
20.9 ADA x 1.44 WADA/ADA Ratio = 30.1 WADA
$3,264 disadvantage x 30.1 WADA in classroom =
05/18/2016
Equity Center

16. $98,246 less funding for every classroom of 22 children
05/18/2016
Equity Center

17. $98,246 less funding for every classroom of 22 children
and at a 11.3 cent higher tax rate
“Our basic framework for deciding this issue has not changed since Edgewood I, where we held that ‘districts must have substantially equal access to similar revenues per pupil at similar levels of tax effort’.”
05/18/2016
Equity Center

18. Equity Center Standing Up for Texas Taxpayers and Children
05/18/2016
Equity Center