Author: mopress

The Edgewood defendants, led by MALDEF attorneys, had emphasized
inequities in facilities funding as a glaring example of
‘constitutional inefficiency’ in the structure of Texas
education. But the court refused to isolate the problem of
facilities from overall funding equity, and then argued that raw
disparities in existing facilities could not meet the burden of proof.

Despite poor facilities, Edgwood and Alvarado plaintiffs (with only one
exception) were maintaining their accreditation, said the court, so the
educational impact of poor buildings was not so obvious. Without
a stronger connection being argued between poor facilities and poor
education, the court said it had not enough evidence to rule
inequitable facilities unconstitutional. Twenty five percent of
the state’s districts were not even charging facilities taxes.

The State defendants also argue that to prove constitutional
inefficiency the intervenors must offer evidence of an inability to
provide for a general diffusion of knowledge without additional
facilities, and that they have failed to do so. Again, we agree.
Efficiency requires only substantially equal access to revenue for
facilities necessary for an adequate system.

The slideshows of cracked walls and ceilings that were so
compelling to view in court did not carry much weight within the legal
framework constructed by the Texas Supreme Court.–gm

On page 45 of the Texas Supreme Court decision on school funding, we
find ambivalence on how to measure Texas education through a
standardized national exam. In the first half of the paragraph, the
court buys into the argument made by a State witness that scores should
be adjusted for "socioeconomic and family characteristics" meaning that
poor and non-white students should be compared not to rich white
students but to other poor and non-white students. Since half of Texas
students live in poverty, the choice of comparison makes a big
difference.

In the second half of the paragraph, the court admits that if the
purpose of a public school system is to get students ready for college,
then unadjusted scores in Texas indicate some worrisome failure:

Academic success is also measured by the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) achievement test, as witnesses for all
parties at trial acknowledged. In 2000, controlling for socioeconomic
and family characteristics, Texas was first out of 47 states overall,
first for white students, fifth for African-American students, ninth
for Hispanic students, first for fourth- and eighth-graders in math,
and second in rate of improvement. In 2003, Texas ranked first in the
nation in closing the gap between African-American and white
fourth-graders in math, and second in the nation in closing the gap
between Hispanic and white fourth-graders in math and reading. But
unadjusted NAEP data, which may more accurately reflect college
preparation, showed Texas sinking to 37th among the states in
fourth-grade and eighth-grade reading, although it had risen to 22nd in
fourth-grade math and remained 34th in eighth-grade math.

The issue is crucial to deciding on the adequacy and
worthiness of education in Texas. Does the Constitution allow the
Supreme Court to consider education of poor students in Texas ‘good
enough’ so long as it’s no worse than the education of poor students
elsewhere? Or does it flatly mandate widespread college-level prep? Of
course one answer IS more expensive than the other. In choosing the
cheaper path, the Supreme Court seems to rely on rankings of
‘improvement’–a criterion that sounds something like ‘all deliberate
speed’. The court goes on to note that:

In 2003, Texas ranked last among the states in the
percentage of high school graduates at least 25 years old in the
population. Texas also has a severe dropout problem: more than half of
the Hispanic ninth-graders and approximately 46% of the
African-American ninth-graders leave the system before they reach the
twelfth grade. The gaps between white students on the one hand and
African-American and Hispanic students on the other are especially
troublesome since the African-Americans and Hispanics are projected to
be about two-thirds of Texas’ population in 2040. According to the
plaintiffs’ expert, if these gaps are not reduced, Texas will ‘have a
population that not only will be poorer, less well-educated, and more
in need of numerous forms of state services than its present
population, but also less able to support such services . . . [and]
less competitive in the increasingly international labor and other
markets.’

Yet with all these existing challenges the court finds that because
Texas is improving steadily with respect to other states, the education
system is not ‘arbitrary’ and thus cannot be ruled inadequate by
constitutional standards.

Having carefully reviewed the evidence and the district
court’s findings, we cannot conclude that the Legislature has acted
arbitrarily in structuring and funding the public education system so
that school districts are not reasonably able to afford all students
the access to education and the educational opportunity to accomplish a
general diffusion of knowledge.

"We recognize," said the court, "that the standard of arbitrariness
we have applied is very deferential to the Legislature, but as we have
explained, we believe that standard is what the Constitution requires.
Nevertheless, the standard can be violated." The court rejected
all the state’s arguments that would keep the court from staying
involved if facts of Texas education do not continue to improve.

–gm

Note: Angela Valenzuela is an education activist with values that we
respect. Here is a Thanksgiving note she recently shared with her list.
Posted by permission of the author.–gm

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

I want to take this opportunity to share with listserv subscribers
a little bit about me. This may be conveyed through a story that
appeared today in the San Angelo Standard Times about my recently
deceased mother, Helen Rios Valenzuela. (I’m from San Angelo, Texas).
My Mom passed away last week and here’s the link to today’s story that I think is well done:

There is only one error in the story. It says that my Mom is from
Phoenix, Arizona, when she’s actually from Superior, Arizona. However,
as a five year old, she did spend half a year alone in Phoenix in a
children’s hospital specifically for polio victims. She definitely beat
the odds. She wasn’t supposed to have ever walked and she did. She
wasn’t supposed to have had any children and she had three. And as a
female, Mexican American high school dropout who grew up during the Jim
Crow segregation era (de facto segregation, for Mexican Americans), she
was not supposed to have succeeded in life. In fact, my Mom graduated
from college with very high honors. There’s a part of the story about my Mom deciding to go to college
that I want to add. I was a senior in college when my Mom decided to go
(she had already taken and passed her GED). Incidentally, it was really
neat for me to cross paths with her daily during my senior year in
college. She was always surrounded by young college people who sought
her out. And I remember her bringing them home since our home was
already a social and intellectual center where we discussed and
questioned everything. And anyone who entered that space participated.

My Mom possessed a unique ability to accept, respect, and be open to
each person’s opinion and individuality. Since what always mattered
most to her was the relationship, you could tell her anything. This
certainly played an important role in my own development primarily
because it freed me to follow my dreams.

To continue, my Mom observed how by my junior year in college I was
questioning so much of what I had grown up with and how I was changing
as a consequence. I grew more distant as I felt that my parents could
no longer relate to me as they had previously. All of this saddened my
Mom as we had always had a close relationship. Several months after
enrolling in college, she asked me if I knew why she had decided to go
to college. I told her that I had an idea but wasn’t sure that I really
knew. My Mom then told me that she had always cherished our
relationship so much that she decided to go to college so that she
wouldn’t lose me.

I remember feeling amazed and profoundly flattered by her comment even as I attempted to grasp the strength of her love for me.

We’ll miss my Mom this Thanksgiving, especially since it was her
favorite holiday. We thought that she’d a least make it to
Thanksgiving…. In any case, I’m thankful to my Mother for her
unconditional love and passion for life.

I share all of this because my Mother’s life and death have been
very instructive to me, as well as to so many others. Perhaps this will
be instructive to you as well. Please know that I, too, am well—as is
my family.

Peace,

Angela Valenzuela

P.S. There is a photo, obituary, and additional comments by me about my Mom on my blog at:
http://texasedequity.blogspot.com/

Ruling Abandons Low-wealth Districts and Upholds Glaring Inequities in the System

PRESS RELEASE

(AUSTIN, TEXAS) More than 16 years after declaring the school finance
system unconstitutional in Edgewood I, the Supreme Court of Texas
refused to remedy persistent inequalities in the present school funding
system. As a result, millions of school children in property-poor school districts
across the state face the prospect of even greater inequities in a new system that will not contain a property
tax cap.

MALDEF represented the Edgewood Districts∗, a group of 22
property-poor school districts, many of which filed the original
landmark school finance suit in 1984. With a trial record consisting of 655
findings of fact and 24 conclusions of law based on over 7,000 exhibits and testimony from dozens of
witnesses, the Supreme Court refused to address the issues and, instead, deferred to the Legislature’s
discretion. Although the Supreme Court found that the State violated the Texas Constitution by forcing
districts to tax at the maximum rate, the Court failed to address the gross inequities in the system. “MALDEF is very disappointed with the Supreme Court’s ruling,”
said MALDEF President and General Counsel Ann Marie Tallman. “This case
is not about money but rather about lost educational opportunities for
the 2 million-plus students attending
schools in property-poor districts. Unfortunately, the
Court’s decision ill-serves the interests of those children and the future of all Texas residents.”

David Hinojosa, MALDEF Staff Attorney and lead counsel in the
case, added: “Fifty years after Brown v. Board, our undisputed evidence
at trial showed that the quality of education for certain Texas
children still suffers as a direct result of which side of the tracks
they live on. Despite the glaring disparities between the haves and
havenots, the Court refused to confront the issues head on.

He continued: “The saving grace for our districts was that the Supreme Court did not state that the
recapture system needed to be eliminated. With that in mind, there is every reason for the Legislature to
address the inequities in the system when creating its new school finance plan.”

"While the Supreme Court ruled that the financing system is constitutionally efficient, no one should
believe we have a quality school system that can support the economic future of Texas. MALDEF looks
forward to working with the Legislature to provide a funding system that is fair and equitable for all Texas
children," commented Luis Figueroa, MALDEF Legislative Staff Attorney.

A national nonprofit organization found in 1968, MALDEF promotes and
protects the rights of Latinos through advocacy, community education
and outreach, leadership development, higher education scholarships and
when necessary, through the legal system.

∗ The Edgewood District consist of the following Independent School Districts: Edgewood, Brownsville,
Edcouch-Elsa, Harlandale, Harlingen, Jim Hogg County, Kenedy, Laredo, La Feria, La Vega, Los Fresnos,
Monte Alto, Pharr-San Juan-Alamo, Raymondville, Roma, San Benito, San Elizario, Socorro, Sharyland,
South San Antonio, United, and Ysleta.

Note: received via email at noon Nov. 22, corrected version received about 2pm.