Date post: | 27-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | dustin-powell |
View: | 226 times |
Download: | 6 times |
Moak, Casey & Associates
STATUS OF SCHOOL FINANCE LITIGATION
Lynn Moak, Moak, Casey & Associates
January 20, 2012
Moak, Casey & Associates
Status of Litigation
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, 2012
Moak, Casey & Associates
Adequacy
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Do the outdated cost measures impair the adequacy of the system?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, 2012
Moak, Casey & Associates
Equity
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, 2012
Moak, Casey & Associates
Meaningful Discretion
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, 2012
Moak, Casey & Associates
Rationality
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, 2012
Moak, Casey & Associates
Litigation Timing
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, 2012
Moak, Casey & Associates
Closing Lawsuit Observations
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, 2012
Moak, Casey & Associates
Growth in District Revenue 2005-2009
January 20, 2012
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000Revenue per Enrolled Student by Source
State per Student Local Tax per Student Other Local per Student Federal per Student
$8,349
$9,388 $9,739 $9,965$10,327
$8,768
Moak, Casey & Associates
Texas in National Rankings on Public Education Spending
NCES data on Texas current expenditures per pupil in membership 1997-98: $5,444 - ranked 36th among the
states 2008-09: $8,562 – ranked 43rd among the
states
Enrollment growth/school construction costs may serve to keep current expenditures lower than in some other states
January 20, 2012
Moak, Casey & AssociatesJanuary 20, 2012
Moak, Casey & AssociatesJanuary 20, 2012
Moak, Casey & Associates
Amanda Brownson, Ph. D.Dee CarneyChris GrammerBob PopinskiLarry ThromMaria Whitsett, Ph. D.Joe Wisnoski
Lynn M. Moak
Daniel T. CaseyPartners
Kathy MathiasLarry Groppel, Ed. D.
Thomas V. Alvis, Ph. D.Consultants
Susan MoakKari Ruehman
Administrative Staff
400 West 15th Street, Suite 1410, Austin, Texas 78701-1648Ph. (512) 485-7878 Fax (512) 485-7888
www.moakcasey.com
January 20, 2012