1. The 29—Month Legislative Session
Mexican American School Board Association
MASBA 17th Annual Conference and Expo
January 23, 2015
Presented by the Equity Center

2. Gold Sponsors
1/23/2015
Equity Center

3. Center for Equity and Adequacy in Public School Finance
Research in Texas School Finance
Provide Expert Testimony in School Finance Litigation
Testify before Legislative Committees
Lobby for Fair and Adequate Funding for all Districts
Lobby for Fair Treatment of Property Taxpayers
Provide a resource to Legislators, Reporters, General Public, School Boards and Administrators
1/23/2015
Equity Center

4. The Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness School Finance Litigation Timeline & Findings
1/23/2015
Equity Center

5. Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition, et al. vs. Williams, et al.
Spring 2011—Legislature cuts public education by $5.4 billion
Including the lowest funded districts at maximum tax rates
Summer 2011—Initial meetings to discuss whether litigation was only viable option
October 11, 2011—Fairness Coalition files suit
October 22, 2012—Trial begins
February 4, 2013—After 45 days of trial, Judge Dietz rules from the bench that the Texas school finance system is unconstitutional on three counts:
Lack of equity/efficiency
Lack of resources to fund a general diffusion of knowledge (GDK)/Adequate Funding
De facto state property tax
1/23/2015
Equity Center

6. Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition, et al. vs. Williams, et al.
Judge Dietz, however, does not issue a Final Decision with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law before the end of the 2013 Legislative Session
Legislature restores $3.4 billion—the right way
Funded Regular Program Allotment at 100%
2 years ahead of schedule
$1 billion for the biennium
Increased Basic Allotment/Equalized Wealth Level
$2 billion for the biennium
1/23/2015
Equity Center

7. Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition, et al. vs. Williams, et al.
After the actions of the 83rd legislature, the Court granted a motion to reopen the evidence to update the record
The Court held an evidentiary hearing that began on January 21, and ended on February 6, 2014
1/23/2015
Equity Center

8. Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition, et al. vs. Williams, et al.
June 2, 2014—Attorney General Abbott filed to have Judge Dietz recused from the case for bias.
Judge Dietz immediately refused to step down; Visiting Judge David Peeples was assigned to rule on the motion
June 23, 2014—After a one-day hearing, Judge Peeples ruled: “The circumstances shown by the evidence do not justify recusal.”
1/23/2015
Equity Center

9. Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition, et al. vs. Williams, et al.
Thursday, August 28, 2014—Judge Dietz released 400+ page decision declaring the system to be UNCONSTUTIONAL
Inequitable
Inadequate
Unsuitable
De facto State Property Tax
July 15, 2015 deadline to fix the system
Bond Payments excluded from deadline
1/23/2015
Equity Center

10. District Court Decision—State Property Tax
“Based upon the competent evidence admitted at trial (both the main trial and upon the reopening of evidence)...”
The Court found:
1. The system imposes a state property tax in violation of Article VIII, Section 1-e
School districts do not have meaningful discretion over the levy, assessment, and disbursement of local property taxes.
1/23/2015
Equity Center

11. District Court Decision—Suitability
2. The Legislature has failed to meet its constitutional duty to suitably provide for Texas Public Schools
The system is structured, operated and funded so that it cannot provide a constitutionally adequate education for all Texas schoolchildren.
1/23/2015
Equity Center

12. District Court Decision—Adequacy
3. The Legislature has structured a school finance system that cannot and has not accomplished a general diffusion of knowledge for all students.
1. According to tests results, graduation rates, dropout rates, etc., Texas public schools are not accomplishing a general diffusion of knowledge due to inadequate funding.
2. The cost of meeting the constitutional mandate of adequacy exceeds the maximum amount of funding that is available to them at both the $1.04 M&O tax rate and the maximum $1.17 M&O rate.
1/23/2015
Equity Center

13. District Court Decision—Adequacy
3. The Legislature violated the ‘arbitrary’ standard described in West Orange Cove II by ‘defining the goals for accomplishing the constitutionally required general diffusion of knowledge’, and then providing ‘insufficient means for achieving those goals.
4. Economically disadvantaged students and English Language Learner students are not achieving a general diffusion of knowledge and that the cost of providing a general diffusion of knowledge to these students exceeds the amount of funding made available.
1/23/2015
Equity Center

14. District Court Decision—Adequacy
5. Current facilities funding is constitutionally inadequate to suitably provide sufficient support for districts to maintain, build, and renovate the classrooms necessary for an adequate education. This constitutional infirmity exacerbates the problems resulting from inadequate M&O funding because many districts are forced to use those scarce funds to make up for unfunded facilities needs.
6. M&O and I&S funding available…as a whole is insufficient to achieve a general diffusion of knowledge.
1/23/2015
Equity Center

15. District Court Decision—Equity
4. All Texas students do not have substantially equal access to the educational funds necessary to accomplish a general diffusion of knowledge.
1. The Texas school finance system is structured, operated, and funded so that it is impossible to achieve a general diffusion of knowledge in a financially efficient manner.
2. A direct and close correlation between a district’s tax effort and the educational resources available to it does not exist.
3. There are large gaps in funding levels and tax effort between low- property wealth and high-property wealth districts.
1/23/2015
Equity Center

16. District Court Decision—Equity
4. Children who live in poor districts and children who live in rich districts are not afforded a substantially equal opportunity to have access to educational funds.
5. The system does not provide similar revenue at the same tax rates for maintenance & operations and facilities funding.
6. Low and high-property wealth districts have vastly different access to facilities funding which is part of the inefficiency and inequity of the system.
1/23/2015
Equity Center

17. District Court Decision—Equity
7. Target Revenue makes it impossible for the system to be equalized to accomplish financial efficiency.
8. Property wealthy districts are able to access substantially more funding at all levels of the system with lower tax rates.
9. Unequal local supplementation in the system destroys the efficiency of the system.
1/23/2015
Equity Center

18. Second Class Children
The state funding system touts a belief in equal revenue for equal tax effort, but the statement is far from true. It seems that when it comes to equal, some children and taxpayers are more equal than others.
1/23/2015
Equity Center

19. A Funding Comparison of the 100 Wealthiest and 100 Poorest Texas School Districts
Much of school finance in Texas is determined by district property wealth or hold- harmlesses that are based on decades old revenue levels that, in turn, were based on past property wealth.
The following analysis is based on Near Final student and district data from the school year because statewide data for the current school year are merely estimates.
However, all of the funding parameters for the school year are known and were applied to the data for this analysis.
For example, the basic allotment was increased from $4,950 to $5,040 this year.
1/23/2015
Equity Center

20. A Funding Comparison of the 100 Wealthiest and 100 Poorest Texas School Districts
1/23/2015
Equity Center

21. Less Revenue per Weighted Student (WADA)
1/23/2015
Equity Center

22. Higher Average Tax Rates
1/23/2015
Equity Center

23. Local Option Homestead Exemptions
1/23/2015
Equity Center

24. Less Revenue per Weighted Student (WADA)
1/23/2015
Equity Center

25. Classroom Funding Disadvantage
If the poorest 100 Texas school districts were funded at the same level the state readily funds the wealthiest 100 districts, they would have an additional …
1/23/2015
Equity Center

26. Classroom Funding Disadvantage
If the poorest 100 Texas school districts were funded at the same level the state readily funds the wealthiest 100 districts, they would have an additional …
$91,688
1/23/2015
Equity Center

27. Classroom Funding Disadvantage
If the poorest 100 Texas school districts were funded at the same level the state readily funds the wealthiest 100 districts, they would have an additional …
$91,688
per typical elementary classroom
1/23/2015
Equity Center

28. Classroom Funding Disadvantage
If the poorest 100 Texas school districts were funded at the same level the state readily funds the wealthiest 100 districts, they would have an additional …
$91,688
per typical elementary classroom
and reduce their M&O tax rates by 11 cents
1/23/2015
Equity Center

29. Classroom Funding Disadvantage
If the poorest 100 Texas school districts were funded at the same level the state readily funds the wealthiest 100 districts, they would have an additional …
$91,688
per typical elementary classroom
and reduce their M&O tax rates by 11 cents
and give a Local Option Homestead Exemption to Homeowners on their property tax, reducing their taxes even more
1/23/2015
Equity Center

30. Classroom Funding Disadvantage
If the poorest 100 Texas school districts were funded at the same level the state readily funds the wealthiest 100 districts, they would have an additional … $91,688 per typical elementary classroom and reduce their M&O tax rates by 11 cents and grant a Local Option Homestead Exemption to Homeowners on their property tax, reducing their taxes even more
1/23/2015
Equity Center

31. INVESTING IN YOUR COMMUNITY

32. Investing in Your Community
It is a widely accepted principle that:
New money infused into a local economy helps grow that economy
New money infused into a local economy from outside sources has a multiplying impact
Every new $1.00 has an impact on the local economy greater than just $1.00
1/23/2015
Equity Center

33. Investing in Your Community
New money infused into the local economy from outside sources impacts that economy in two ways.
Primary impact—the direct and immediate impact of each new dollar on the local economy
1/23/2015
Equity Center

34. Investing in Your Community
New money infused into the local economy from outside sources impacts that economy in two ways.
Primary impact—the direct and immediate impact of each new dollar on the local economy
Secondary impact—the indirect and long term impact of each new dollar on the local economy
1/23/2015
Equity Center

35. Investing in Your Community
New money infused into the local economy from outside sources impacts that economy in two ways
Primary impact—the direct and immediate impact of each new dollar on the local economy
Secondary impact—the indirect and long term impact of each new dollar on the local economy
For the long term, each new dollar, or portions of it, can be re-spent in the local economy up to eight times!
1/23/2015
Equity Center

36. Investing in Your Community
The secondary impact of $1.00 infused into a local economy from outside sources has been estimated to be as great as $3.65
1/23/2015
Equity Center

37. Investing in Your Community
The secondary impact of $1.00 infused into a local economy from outside sources has been estimated to be as great as $3.65
That is a 365% add on
1/23/2015
Equity Center

38. Investing in Your Community
The secondary impact of $1.00 infused into a local economy from outside sources has been estimated to be as great as $3.65
That is a 365% add on
Each outside dollar infused into your local economy could have the equivalent impact of adding $4.65 to the local economy
1/23/2015
Equity Center

39. Investing in Your Community
Soooooooooo—how much difference would increased state funding have on
Your school?
Your local economy?
Well, let’s just see!
1/23/2015
Equity Center

40. Investing in Your Community
If the 100 districts with the lowest wealth per weighted student in average daily attendance (WADA) were to have the same funding level that the 100 districts with the highest wealth per WADA already have, there would be an additional $1,397,698,650 infused into those 100 communities
$1.4 billion would be the primary impact—directly into the schools
1/23/2015
Equity Center

41. Investing in Your Community
If the 100 districts with the lowest wealth per weighted student in average daily attendance (WADA) were to have the same funding level that the 100 districts with the highest wealth per WADA already have, there would be an additional $1,397,698,650 infused into those 100 communities
$1.4 billion would be the primary impact—directly into the schools
$1.4 billion X 3.65 would = 5,110,000,000 (the secondary impact in the community)
1/23/2015
Equity Center

42. Investing in Your Community
If the 100 districts with the lowest wealth per weighted student in average daily attendance (WADA) were to have the same funding level that the 100 districts with the highest wealth per WADA already have, there would be an additional $1,397,698,650 infused into those 100 communities
$1.4 billion would be the primary impact
$1.4 billion X 3.65 would = 5,110,000,000 (the secondary impact in the community)
The total impact to those communities would = over$6.5 Billion
1/23/2015
Equity Center

43. Investing in Your Community
UTSA annual study on the economic impact of the Eagle Ford Shale
Calculated the direct and indirect or secondary economic effects
Examined 15 of the busiest counties
From 2012 to 2013 the impact grew from $61B to $87B—nearly equal to the San Antonio area’s GDP
Created 5,600 more jobs directly employed in the industry
1/23/2015
Equity Center

44. Investing in Your Community
UTSA annual study on the economic impact of the Eagle Ford Shale
Calculated the direct and indirect or secondary economic effects
Examined 15 of the busiest counties
From 2012 to 2013 the impact grew from $61B to $87B—nearly equal to SA area’s GDP
Created 5,600 more jobs directly employed in the industry
Secondary impact is enormous
1/23/2015
Equity Center

45. Equity Center Standing Up for Texas Taxpayers and Children
1/23/2015
Equity Center