p latinum s ponsor. g old s ponsors the curtain rises on the second act equity center presentation...

PLATINUM SPONSOR

GOLD SPONSORS

The Curtain Rises on the Second ActEquity Center presentation to the

Texas Association of Community SchoolsSan Antonio Conference

September 14, 2015

Texas Supreme Court Oral Argumentsin

Williams, et al. versus

Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition, et al.

& More

And, away we go!!!!!

Oral Arguments before the Supreme Court of Texas

Michael Williams, et al. vs.

Texas Taxpayers & Student Fairness Coalition, et al.

09/14/2015 Equity Center 4

The State’s Argument - Adequacy• Trial court ruling is based on financial inputs and not student

performance (outputs)• System is “working toward its goals” and is therefore

constitutionally adequate•Must be judged looking “through the prism” of the goals of

the State; not what is happening now• “Quantum leap” doesn’t happen overnight

• In response to questions: Money can impact results; GDK does include college readiness


The State’s Argument – Equity• An acceptable tax rate gap between the top and bottom 15%

of students was 9 cents in Edgewood IV ; it is now 7.5 cents• Does not matter that the funding was the same in EIV, but not

now.• If the Court were to decide that the funding and tax rate gaps

had become too large, it must look “behind the system” to see if districts can still achieve a GDK• If they can, the system is not constitutionally inefficient, regardless

of the gaps


• If the Court IS going to make a decision in the case, it should ignore funding levels, studies of funding levels required to provide a GDK, and inequities within those funding levels. The Court should ONLY look at RESULTS—and by that, they should only look at State goals. • In other words, as long as the State keeps their goals at the

GDK level, then none of the financial data make a difference.


The State’s Argument

• Fort Bend ISD, et al. – Former Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson – Justiciability + Suitability + State Property Tax •Calhoun County Group – Adequacy• Edgewood ISD, et al. – Suitability, especially with

respect to funding for Compensatory Education and Bilingual/ESL• Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition – Equity +

Adequacy + Suitability09/14/2015 Equity Center 8

The ISD Plaintiffs

•Most thorough record on school finance ever developed• The State has set a minimal standard of college readiness –

60% chance of making a C in a entry level college course• Only a third of economically disadvantaged students reach that

minimal level• Only half of the rest reach that minimal standard

• The results scream at you that this system is not doing what it is designed to do


The ISD Plaintiff Argument – TT&SFC

1. Top and bottom 15% of students at maximum tax rate: The $600 systemic Edgewood IV gap has grown to $3,436• About $100,000 less per classroom



2. Court adopted $3,500/WADA as GDK in Edgewood IV (1993)



2. Court adopted $3,500/WADA as GDK in Edgewood IV (1993)• Everyone could get there, but it required the poor districts an

additional 9 cents• Adjusting the $3,500 for inflation only and forgetting about

increased standards, the $3,500 in EIV was $6,576 in 2012





increased standards, the $3,500 in EIV was $6,576 in 2012• 80% of districts cannot get there within the $1.17 cap• Using the Edgewood IV calculation (footnote 12 in the decision),

ignoring the cap and assuming continued equalization above $1.17, it takes the poorest 15% $1.31 to raise $6,576 and the wealthiest 15% can raise that amount at $0.94 – a 37 cent gap



3. WOC II Comparison: Top and bottom 5%• $1,678 Gap in 2003• Today, $3,265 – about $100,000 a classroom• Better teachers, more aides, more equipment, better counselors,

more counselors, you name it, you can do a whole lot more with $100,000 a classroom



Impact of the “less than 300 square miles” Small District

formula on 462 Districts



0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450$4,200

$4,400

$4,600

$4,800

$5,000

$5,200

$5,400

$5,600

$5,800

$6,000

$6,200

$6,400

$6,600

Pretend vs. True Funding Levels - Impact of the Small Schools Penalty Formula

Pretend Funding Level True Funding Level

Districts, Sorted from Low to High by Current Law Funding per WADA

Stat

e +

Loca

l M&

O R

even

ue p

er W

eigh

ted

ADA

(WAD

A)

462


> $1,000/WADA $500 - $1,000/WADA

$100 - $500/WADA

$1 - $100/WADA

No ASATR$5,500

$6,000

$6,500

$7,000

$7,500

$8,000

$8,500

$0.98

$1.00

$1.02

$1.04

$1.06

$1.08

$1.10

0.995

1.0431.039

1.066

1.086

Impact of Additional State Aid for Tax Reduction - FY 2016Avg Rev/WADA without ASATR Avg M&O Rev/WADA with ASATRFY 15 Avg M&O Tax Rate

ASATR Revenue per Weighted ADA (WADA)

Stat

e +

Loca

l Rev

enue

per

Wei

ghte

d AD

A (W

ADA)

Ado

pted

M&

O T

ax R

ate


> $1,000/WADA $500 - $1,000/WADA

$100 - $500/WADA

$1 - $100/WADA No ASATR$5,500

$6,000

$6,500

$7,000

$7,500

$8,000

$8,500

Eliminate Small Schools Penalty, Roll ASATR into the Basic AllotmentM&O Revenue at ATR Without ASATR M&O Rev/WADA at ATR With ASATRNew M&O Funding per CL WADA (no Capacity left)

ASATR Revenue per Weighted ADA (WADA)

Stat

e +

Loca

l Rev

enue

per

Wei

ghte

d AD

A (W

ADA)

Regardless of the Court’s Decision,the Final Act will begin in the following Legislative Session


How much money is available to respond to a favorable Supreme Court decision?


State Estimated Revenue Not Appropriated for the 2016 – 2017

Biennium• How much was left unspent in General Revenue?

$6.4 Billion• How much of the $6.4 B is below the spending limit for this

biennium? $2.9 Billion

• How much money is in the Rainy Day Fund?$11.1 Billion


Equity Center 25

Equity CenterStanding Up for Texas Taxpayers and

Children

09/14/2015

p latinum s ponsor. g old s ponsors the curtain rises on the second act equity center presentation...

Documents