1949 Gilmer-Aikin Act: established "Minimum Foundation Program"
1971-1973 Rodriguez v. San Antonio I.S.D. claimed the state's school funding system was unconstitutional under the federal constitution
1989 Edgewood v. Kirby (I): a group of school districts charged that there was substantial inequity among school districts through Texas' use of property taxes to fund education
1991 Edgewood v. Kirby (II): Texas Supreme Court ruled the finance system was unconstitutional
1992 Carrollton-Farmers Branch I.S.D. v. Edgewood I.S.D. aka Edgewood (III) revised the finance system
1995 Edgewood I.S.D. v. Meno aka Edgewood (IV) third legislative effort deemed unconstitutional by the court
2001 West Orange-Cove Consolidated I.S.D. v. Alanis et. al. high property wealth school districts filed a lawsuit claiming the limit to the local tax rate violated the state constitution; the State's school finance system, ie. the state property tax system had become unconstitutional
2005 West Orange-Cove Consolidated I.S.D. v. Neeley The Texas Supreme Court partially upheld and partially reversed the decision
2006 the Texas legislature reduced the maximum rate at which property taxes could be levied for school operating expenses; this funding level remains in effect to this day
www.schoolfunding.info/states/tx/lit_tx.php3
www.investintexasschools.org/schoolfunding/history.php
The following information was taken from a presentation made to Edgewood ISD Board of Trustees by Larry Stavinoah.
"The Edgewood 1 decision established an equity standard that should guide lawmakers in crating sschool funding formulas. "School districts should have substantially equal access to similar revenues per pupil at similar levels of tax effort." In other words the formulas should produce the same dollars for the same kids for the same level of tax effort.
From 1993-2006, the state of Texas made significant progress toward school funding equity; however, when the Texas Legislature implemented HB1 and Target Revenue much of that progress was negated. Basically, Target Revenue is complicated and unfair and should be eliminated.
The Foundation School Program (FSP) formulas guarantee school districts a certain amount of revenue for the number of students that the district has in its Average Daily Attendance (ADA) and Weighted ADA. The amount of state revenue that a district receives is directly related to its ability to raise the FSP guarantee in local property taxes. Since the passage of HB 1 in 2006, the FSP formulas have been subject to Target Revenue. A school district that is relatively property wealthy per student will generate most of the FSP guarantee from local property taxes. A school district that is relatively property poor will generate most of the FSP guarantee from state aid.
For example, a school district like Alamo Heights that is relatively property wealthy per student will generate most of its revenue from local property taxes. Of the revenue that Alamo Heights is allowed to retain, 85% comes from local perperty taxes and 15% comes from state aid. Of the approximately 55.5 million that Alamo Heights collects in local property taxes, approximately 28.6 million is recaptured by the state. A school district like Edgewood that is relatively property poor per student will receive most of its revenue from state aid. Edgewood receives approximately 15% of its revenue from local property taxes and 85% from state aid."
No comments:
Post a Comment