Inequity in School Funding—Just How Bad Is It?

[white cloud]

TEXAS AFT LEGISLATIVE HOTLINE
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2011

Inequity in School Funding—Just How Bad Is It?

Our friends at the Equity Center in Austin have put out a new analysis that shows just how inequitable Texas school funding will be, now that the legislature has allocated $4 billion in unprecedented per-pupil funding cuts across all the districts in the state. We encourage you to read the entire summer edition of their quarterly newsletter, InDepth, to see the fuller picture of just how bad the inequity of the current system is.

The Equity Center analysis highlights the dramatically different per-pupil funding levels of four sets of districts paired by location, or size, or tax rate, or revenue. Each comparison illustrates another dimension of the pervasive inequity of the state's funding mechanism.

Alamo Heights ISD and San Antonio ISD are next-door neighbors in Bexar County, and they have the same local $1.04 tax rate. But Alamo Heights schools are entitled to $6,242 per weighted pupil in the 2011-2012 school year under the state's newly revised school-finance law, while San Antonio ISD schools are entitled to just $5,035.

Glen Rose ISD and Diboll ISD are comparable in size, but there the resemblance ends. Glen Rose will be entitled to $8,423 per weighted pupil in 2011-2013; Diboll will be eligible for only $4,882, even though its tax rate is $1.04 versus just $0.825 for wealthy Glen Rose.

School districts at similar levels of tax effort supposedly are entitled by state law to "substantially equal access to similar revenue per student." The tax rates of Austin ISD and Amarillo ISD certainly are similar: $1.079 and $1.08, respectively. But the newly revised school-finance law gives Austin ISD a guarantee of $6,180 per pupil, while Amarillo ISD is entitled only to $5,139.

It will come as no surprise, therefore, that some districts must tax their property owners at much higher rates than others to get the same level of revenue. Thus, College Station ISD and Jourdanton ISD are guaranteed almost exactly the same per-pupil revenue--$5,654 for the former, $5,562 for the latter. But College Station ISD property is taxed at just $1.04 to yield that amount, while Jourdanton ISD had to push its rate to the maximum of $1.17 allowed under state law to obtain equivalent revenue.

The Equity Center analysts have some choice words for the state leaders and legislators who have been content to allow these arbitrary and unfair disparities in educational opportunity to persist. They write:

"During the 82nd Legislative Session, legislative leaders were concerned that reducing funding just in very highly-funded districts would be too severe. They actually characterized it as 'too extreme' and 'unfair'….Instead, they cut the districts already at the lowest levels….If fair was indeed a priority with the state leadership, there wouldn't be funding inequities to start with. Let's be straight about that."

The authors say the best to be said for the newly revised state funding scheme is that it makes the great inequities in our funding system more obvious than ever. "This time," they add, "three additional truths have been exposed:

--Maintaining an inequitable system takes funding from the districts at the bottom. In fact, the leadership admitted they were cutting low-funded districts in order to avoid cutting high-funded districts back to the formula level .

--The leadership does not want an efficient, equitable funding system. If we have an unfair system, then it is because that's the way they want it.

--Fair treatment for children and taxpayers will not come until the people demand it."

From: Texas AFT <[e-mail]>

[sonias]

1. Lawsuits here they come

It's the only choice for some of these school districts since the state drops the ball - big time.

:kick: