With the findings of the recent district court decision finally in place, the Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition, et. al. litigation has shifted into the appellate stage.  As you visit with your board, faculty, community members, and legislators, you will have a chance to share what this decision says and means.   We thought it would be helpful to share with you what we feel are key points, taken verbatim from the declaratory relief sections of Judge Dietz's August 28th decision, as it impacts the equity (efficiency) of our system.   uityWe will send additional detailed discussions of Judge Dietz's findings, and how we think they can impact the legislative process, in the near future.

Key Equity (Efficiency) Rulings by 250th District Court
Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition, et al. v. Michael Williams, Commissioner of Education, et. al.
 

Financial Efficiency (Equity) Claims:

1. In the current system there is not a direct and close correlation between a district's tax effort and the educational resources available to it.
2. As a result, there are large gaps in funding levels and tax effort between low property wealth and high property wealth districts.
3. These gaps disadvantage the students in low property wealth districts in acquiring a general diffusion of knowledge (GDK) and are incompatible with a system that requires that "children who live in poor districts and children who live in rich districts. . . be afforded a substantially equal opportunity to have access to educational funds."
4. The system arbitrarily funds districts at different levels below the constitutionally required level of a GDK.
5. The school finance system violates the "efficiency" provisions because it fails to provide substantially equal access to the maintenance and operations (M&O) and interest and sinking (I&S) tax revenues necessary to provide a GDK at similar tax effort.
6. The system permits an amount of unequal local supplementation in the system that is so great as to destroy the efficiency of the system.
7. Additionally, insofar as the state continues to rely on disparate property values and accompanying property taxes to fund public schools, equalization provisions such as equalized wealth levels, guaranteed yields, recapture and caps on maximum tax rates, will be essential for a financially efficient and equitable system.
8. The state's failure to make facilities funding a statutorily permanent part of the system and its failure to update the equalized wealth level/guaranteed yield, along with the lack of recapture in I&S, means that low and high property wealth districts have vastly different access to facilities funding and that also contributes to the inefficiency and inequity of the system as a whole.
9. The system fails to provide substantially equal access to revenues necessary to provide a GDK at similar tax effort and instead arbitrarily funds districts at different levels below the constitutionally required level.  
10. The present school finance system is in violation of the Texas Constitution with respect to M&O and I&S, both separately and as complementary aspects of the system.

Suitability Claims:

1. In each of the suitability findings, the judgement uses the terms "structured, operated and funded" to describe the unsuitability of the finance system. These terms impact the efficiency of the system.  
2. In finding four, it says ". . . the Texas school finance system is structured, operated and funded so that it cannot accomplish financial equity.
3. Property wealthy districts are able to access substantially more funding at all levels of the system.
4. The use of two separate funding mechanisms for M&O, formula funding and target revenue, makes it impossible for the finance system to be equalized to accomplish financial efficiency.
5. "THIS COURT DECLARES that the . . . system fails to satisfy the 'make suitable provision' requirement because it is structured, operated, and funded so that it is impossible to achieve a general diffusion of knowledge in a financially efficient manner."