1. Lynn Moak, Moak, Casey & Associates January 20, 2012Moak, Casey & Associates

2.  Causes of Action:  Adequacy : Rising standards and funding cuts leave insufficient revenue to provide the GDK.  Meaningful discretion: Remaining tax rate capacity is insufficient to offset for funding cuts, and provide meaningful discretion to enrich.  Efficiency/Equity: Target revenue disparities in combination with unequalized funds produces unconstitutional student / taxpayer inequity.  Rationality: The state has failed to provide a rational system based on appropriate cost adjustments and structure January 20, 2012Moak, Casey & Associates

3.  How good does our education system have to be to meet the general diffusion of knowledge standard of the Texas constitution?  Is the cost of adequacy under the current system a suitable subject for judicial determination?  How do the evolving state standards work into the equation?  Do the outdated cost measures impair the adequacy of the system? January 20, 2012Moak, Casey & Associates

4.  Is the degradation of system equity since 2004 severe enough to warrant court intervention?  What weight does the state commitment to eliminate target revenue by 2017 have?  Should the yield for debt service be included in the court’s analysis of tax equity?  Given the standard of equity up to the GDK level, should the lack of recapture for a portion of “enrichment” be considered? January 20, 2012Moak, Casey & Associates

5.  Do the revenue reductions of the 2011 Legislature offset the “meaningful discretion” afforded by $1.17?  Do districts at $1.17 have meaningful discretion to enrich?  Should the effective combination of limited voter appeal and the potential for recapture be considered in the analysis? January 20, 2012Moak, Casey & Associates

6.  Does a separate but unequal funding scheme constitute “suitable” and “efficient” provision?  Does the use of 1980s’ weights and adjustments provide the state with a rational basis for funding public education?  Are the state long term commitments to adjust standards and financing sufficient? January 20, 2012Moak, Casey & Associates

7.  Four groups have filed  Discovery process underway  District court ruling sometime in fall  Supreme Court could direct brief rehearing after the 2013 legislative session January 20, 2012Moak, Casey & Associates

8.  Constitutional challenges as an element in a larger debate  Proclivity of the court to grant state discretion in all but clear “out of bounds” situations  Need for a clear constitutional priority for public education funding  Beware of the request January 20, 2012Moak, Casey & Associates

9. January 20, 2012Moak, Casey & Associates

10.  NCES data on Texas current expenditures per pupil in membership  1997-98: $5,444 - ranked 36 th among the states  2008-09: $8,562 – ranked 43 rd among the states  Enrollment growth/school construction costs may serve to keep current expenditures lower than in some other states January 20, 2012Moak, Casey & Associates

11. January 20, 2012Moak, Casey & Associates

12. January 20, 2012Moak, Casey & Associates

13. Amanda Brownson, Ph. D. Dee Carney Chris Grammer Bob Popinski Larry Throm Maria Whitsett, Ph. D. Joe Wisnoski Lynn M. Moak Daniel T. Casey Partners Kathy Mathias Larry Groppel, Ed. D. Thomas V. Alvis, Ph. D. Consultants Susan Moak Kari Ruehman Administrative Staff 400 West 15 th Street, Suite 1410, Austin, Texas 78701-1648 Ph. (512) 485-7878 Fax (512) 485-7888 www.moakcasey.com January 20, 2012Moak, Casey & Associates