FOR INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Peggy Venable at 512/476-5905

AUSTIN -- Americans for Prosperity-Texas has filed a supplemental amicus brief in the Texas Supreme Court school finance case urging the Court to consider how schools currently prioritize their spending as well as school district reserve funds before determining whether current funding levels can achieve the constitutional benchmarks of efficiency, equity, suitability and adequacy.

The new filing cites reasons why the court should not consider the plaintiffs’ pleas for more funding for schools without factoring in the Governor’s executive order to focus more spending in the classroom. The brief also cites that administrative costs have risen nearly three times faster than student enrollment over the last eight years, outpacing the growth in classroom spending. Operating expenses increased 57% while student enrollment rose 13%, the number of teachers increased 17%, campus administrators increased 32% and central office administrators increased 35%.

The brief also asks the court to consider the large amounts of money some school districts are holding in reserves. One school district is cited as having over $75 million in reserves and the brief argues that it is impossible to conclude that districts have insufficient funds without considering their reserve funds.

The brief states, “It is ironic that districts are litigating and lobbying for more equity and a greater state share of educational expenses at the same time they use accounting gimmicks to shield the full extent of their available resources from the courts and the Legislature.”

The brief asks the Court to reverse the district court’s ruling that school districts lack sufficient funds and that the state must therefore increase spending and raise taxes accordingly.

The original brief urges the Court to reverse Judge Dietz’s ruling that the legislature increase state spending on taxpayer-funded schools. The brief in the first instance asks the Court to reverse the lower court judgment and to extricate itself and the entire Texas judiciary from the policy question of school finance. The brief asks the Court to reverse Judge Dietz’s ruling citing no connection between spending per student and educational outcomes.

The amicus brief notes that Utah recently spent less money per student than every other state in the union, yet its students ranked fourth nationally in SAT scores. Further, Texas Education Agency statistics show that Red Lick ISD with one of the lowest cost per student costs ($4,649) that spends 71% in the classroom, is rated “Exemplary” while the Star ISD (spending $12,419) and Megargel ISD (spending $13,782) are rated “Unacceptable”. Red Lick ISD is only kindergarten through 8^th grade. The school district spending the most per pupil, San Vicente ISD spends $28,490 per pupil, only 46% of it in the classroom and is rated only “Academically Acceptable.”

Marc A. Levin with Potts & Reilly in Austin has filed the briefs on behalf of AFP-Texas. Accompanying the filing were attachments with the school district data including cost per student, percentage spent on instruction, teacher/staff ratios and school district ratings. Also attached to the filing was a listing of examples of waste, fraud and abuse in schools as well as examples of difficulties some taxpayers have had in obtaining financial data from their school districts.

As the original AFP-Texas brief argues: “Judge Dietz failed to consider that there is no demonstrable correlation between education spending and results and that existing funding would certainly be sufficient if it were not being squandered on bloated administration, excessive salaries for administrators, fiscal mismanagement, unnecessary programs, and inefficient state mandates.”

State District Judge John Dietz of Austin last year ordered Texas to change its public education system, partly because the state Constitution requires "a general diffusion of knowledge" — and with so many dropouts and low performing students, Texas is not delivering, Dietz said.

The state has appealed his ruling to the Texas Supreme Court. The attorney general's office filed the motion, saying the districts do not have legal standing to challenge the funding system because districts are political subdivisions of the state.