Judge reaffirms Texas' 'Robin Hood' system of school funding unconstitutional
AUSTIN — A judge declared Texas' school finance system unconstitutional for a second time on Thursday, finding that even though the Legislature pumped an extra $3 billion-plus into classrooms last summer, the state still fails to provide adequate funding or distribute it fairly among wealthy and poor areas.
State District Judge John Dietz's written ruling reaffirms a verbal decision he issued in February 2013. He found then that the state's so-called “Robin Hood” funding formula fails to meet the Texas Constitution's requirements for a fair and efficient system that provides a “general diffusion of knowledge.”
Dietz's final, 21-page opinion took the extra step of blocking Texas from using portions of its system to pay for schools — but put that order on hold until July. That gives the Legislature, which reconvenes in January, an opportunity to “cure the constitutional deficiencies,” the ruling says.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's office, which had argued that the system was flawed but nonetheless constitutional, said that the state “will appeal and will defend this law, just as it defends all laws enacted by the Legislature when they are challenged in court.” That means the case is likely headed to the Texas Supreme Court.
If the high court upholds the Dietz decision, it will be up to state lawmakers to design a new funding method. Still, all appeals may not conclude until well after the 2015 legislative session is over.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Convicted Florida felon kills his 6 grandchildren, daughter, self
- Red tide threatens Florida economy
- Al-Qaida cell poses as great a danger as ISIS
- British hostage in Islamic State video talks of showing ‘the truth’
- White House orders plan for antibiotic resistance problem
- Indictment in Georgia tot’s death in hot car gives jury latitude to convict dad of malice or neglect
- Patent office: ‘We are committed’ to addressing telework fraud
- Hurdles for Obama health care law in 2nd sign-up season
- House preps to aid rebels
- House preps resolution to aid Syrian rebels, combat ISIS
- Improved economy drives first decline in the national poverty rate in 7 years