Haven't read it yet, but it's out. Deadline is June 1 to fix this shit.
From the Decision:
"We agree that the constitutional standard is plainly result-oriented. It creates no duty to fund public education at any level other than what is required to achieve a general diffusion of knowledge. While the end-product of public education is related to the resources available for its use, the relationship is neither simple nor direct; public education can and often does improve with greater resources, just as it struggles when resources are withheld, but more money does not guarantee better schools or more educated students." [empahsis added]
So, basically...the current funding system is unconstitutional but...we aren't saying y'all in the Lege need to pump more money in we're just saying the way you're doing it now ain't right?
And we also love that the goal of education is to achieve a 'general diffusion of knowledge'. Wow, I've never been more proud to be a Texan. We strive for....well, just under the bar.
As we remember this week that we live in America and we are thankful for it, we also remind ourselves to recall and not encourage our children to believe government will save us. Freedom means it isn't up to government- it's up to us- so get up and find something to do in your community and stop waiting for the government to to it for you- they are busy building roads and defending you (what they are good at). Aside from that-cmon folks- get out of Dillard's and Breed's and Co. and go help your local school and stop whining about the Leg. The constitution isn't supposed to require a Neiman Marcus education....have a field day with that statement crybabies...or channel that great energy into becoming a mentor or assisting an illegal immagrant with obtaining their citizenship. Hugs!
No one is claiming public ed. should be Neiman Marcus. But is sure as hell shouldn't be Family Dollar!
Let me do my first ever, when I was a kid story. When I was a kid, public education was where everyone went..rich and poor...because we got a damn good education and it never crossed our minds that there would be an alternative.
My public ed. did me well from a poor state, rich district.
We can't ignore there is some fucked up shit going on with the current system. What the fix is, I don't know but it's something...that's for damn sure.
With all due respect - the when I was a kid story doesn't hold water anymore - because when you were a kid technology was an overhead projector (me too, I'm not being tacky-just truthful). We need to change the mentality on school funding- we have to stop putting atheletics-stadiums-administrative salaries and such before classroom instruction so our kids will be competitive in a global economy. Stop complaining and do something productive with all that mojo. You've obviously got the techy/journalism/candoattitude gene- go find a school where you can volunteer your time-they need you!
Some key sentences from my read of the opinion:
1. "The Legislature may (not) define what constitutes a general diffusion of knowledge so low as to avoid its obligation to make suitable provsiion imposed by article VII, Section 1".
2. "It would be arbitrary...for the Legislature to define the goals of accomplishing the constitutionally required general diffusion of knowledge, and then to provide insufficient means for achieving those goals".
3. "...all of this evidence taken together, along with the extensive record before us, clearly shows that shool districts have lost meaningful discretion to tax below maximum rates and still provide an accredited education".
4. "The constitutional violation cannot be corrected without raising the cap on local tax rates or changing the system".
I think these statements, taken together, put the Leg in an interesting box. Because the cap is unconstitutional, the Leg must either raise the cap or change the system (statement 4). They could try to "dumb down" the standards, but the court might (once again) intervene (see 1). They can't claim to raise standards and not fund them somehow (see 2). And statement 3 implies that the current level of funding is just sufficient to make the current system constitutionally "efficient". The opinion is not a victory for the plaintiffs, but I'm not sure its a resounding victory for the state, either.